Ed Felton v. RIAAIntroductionThe ContestThe ThreatsThe PublicationTimelineStakeholdersGetting More AbstractCompany’s ArgumentsSlide 10Slide 11Slide 12Discloser’s ArgumentsSlide 14Slide 15Slide 16Slide 17LawsSlide 19Slide 20Slide 21Ethical IssuesSlide 23Slide 24ConclusionReferencesEd Felton v. RIAAEd Felton v. RIAAFredrik LundbergFredrik LundbergMatt GongMatt GongSung NohSung NohIntroductionIntroductionEd Felton is an Ed Felton is an Associate Associate Professor of Professor of Computer Science Computer Science at Princeton at Princeton UniversityUniversityThe ContestThe ContestEd Felten and his team of researchers accepted a public challenge by the Secure Digital Music Initiative (SDMI) to break new watermark technologies.Verance developed these watermark technologies used for copyrighting music.Ed Felton successfully cracked the code but instead of collecting the prize money from the contest, he decided to publish the bug in a paper at a Pittsburgh conference.The ThreatsThe ThreatsEd Felton was threatened by SDMI and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) to keep silent or face litigation under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).The threats stated that Ed Felton violated the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA.Ed Felton decided not to publish the paper at the Pittsburgh conference.The PublicationThe PublicationLater the RIAA and SDMI claim they had no Later the RIAA and SDMI claim they had no intention of suing Ed Feltonintention of suing Ed FeltonStill, Ed Felton filed a lawsuit asking a federal Still, Ed Felton filed a lawsuit asking a federal court to rule that the publication of the paper, court to rule that the publication of the paper, and future papers, would be legaland future papers, would be legalThe case was dismissed by the federal court The case was dismissed by the federal court because it was perceived as conjectural or because it was perceived as conjectural or hypothetical, since the RIAA stated they had “no hypothetical, since the RIAA stated they had “no objection whatsoever”.objection whatsoever”.Ed Felton finally published the paper at the Ed Felton finally published the paper at the Usenix Security Conference.Usenix Security Conference.TimelineTimelineSeptember, 2000: SDMI Challenge introducedNovember 8, 2000: Ed Felton successfully breaks code and intends to publish paperApril 9, 2001: RIAA/SDMI Legally threats Ed FeltonApril 26, 2001: Ed Felton publicly announces not to publish paper.May 3, 2001: RIAA/SDMI claim they never intended to sueJune 6, 2001: Ed Felton files lawsuit against RIAA/SDMIJuly 12, 2001: The case is dismissed by the courtAugust 15, 2001: Paper is publishedStakeholdersStakeholdersRIAA – Record Industry Association of RIAA – Record Industry Association of AmericaAmericaAcademics – professors, students, etc.Academics – professors, students, etc.MusiciansMusiciansVerance and other watermark companiesVerance and other watermark companiesMusic ListenersMusic Listeners–Legitimate BuyersLegitimate Buyers–Those who illegally copyThose who illegally copyGetting More AbstractGetting More AbstractEd Felton v. RIAA is a specific case Ed Felton v. RIAA is a specific case of Freedom of Speech v. copyright of Freedom of Speech v. copyright laws and a company’s rights laws and a company’s rights It can be reduced to the conflict It can be reduced to the conflict between a discloser (I.e. Ed Felton) between a discloser (I.e. Ed Felton) and a company (I.e. RIAA/SDMI)and a company (I.e. RIAA/SDMI)Company’s ArgumentsCompany’s ArgumentsProtecting the CustomersProtecting the Customers–The publication of the bug will most likely The publication of the bug will most likely cause an increase in illegal distribution of cause an increase in illegal distribution of musicmusic–Musicians will be upset that their music is Musicians will be upset that their music is not being purchasednot being purchased–Music listeners will not buy music anymore, Music listeners will not buy music anymore, and the ones that do will be upset that and the ones that do will be upset that others are getting music for free.others are getting music for free.–Verance’s watermark technology devaluedVerance’s watermark technology devaluedCompany’s ArgumentsCompany’s ArgumentsProtection of Intellectual PropertyProtection of Intellectual Property–Copyrights protect musician’s rightsCopyrights protect musician’s rightsIllegal copying devalues musicIllegal copying devalues music–Copyrights preserve the progress of science Copyrights preserve the progress of science and art (I.e. Music)and art (I.e. Music)Preserving the innovative spirit that Preserving the innovative spirit that drives creation of musicdrives creation of musicCompany’s ArgumentsCompany’s ArgumentsProtection of ReputationProtection of Reputation–Reputation may be damaged by flaws being Reputation may be damaged by flaws being known to the publicknown to the publicCriticism may aid in providing fixes for Criticism may aid in providing fixes for bugs, but may allow customers to lose bugs, but may allow customers to lose trust in the companytrust in the company–Company desires security by obscurityCompany desires security by obscurityPhase II products will replace Phase I Phase II products will replace Phase I productsproductsCompany’s ArgumentsCompany’s ArgumentsWatermark technology already in use Watermark technology already in use –(I.e. DVD-Audio, SDMI Phase I products)(I.e. DVD-Audio, SDMI Phase I products)Ed Felton was violating the “spirit and Ed Felton was violating the “spirit and terms” of the “Click-Through Agreement”terms” of the “Click-Through Agreement”Ed Felton misinterpreted the conflict - Ed Felton misinterpreted the conflict - –the conflict is between two competing the conflict is between two competing group of scientists (I.e. Verance and Ed group of scientists (I.e. Verance and Ed Felton)Felton)Discloser’s ArgumentsDiscloser’s ArgumentsProtecting the UsersProtecting the Users–Inform the users about problemsInform the users about problemsThe users has the right to know about The users has the right to know about problems and decide if it is ok to use the problems and decide if it is ok to use the program or not.program or not.It is not more than fair to know about a It is not more