Scientists and Programmers Withhold Research - Essay Example

? Scientists and Programmers Withhold Research Key Words: DMCA Liability, Digital, I. Introduction US regime in its quest to ensure advancement of digital knowhow has relentlessly backed intensive research activities by respective scientists. This is to ensure scientists, programmers and other digital experts in their respective fields uphold essential innovations whose contribution to the global economy is viable. However, this has turned to be a nightmare to both US’ researchers and those emanating from other global states due to the fear of DMCA liability (Von Lohmann, 2010). Therefore, these researchers end up not publishing their information regarding varied flaws they normally find characterizing certain digital products. For instance, Dmitry Sklyarov’s arrest prompted Fred Cohen to withdraw information regarding “Forensix” software from his website claiming he was afraid of DMCA’s liability once he steps in US (Von Lohmann, 2010). Some scientists as well as researchers have expressed their fears especially when visiting US in the quest of attending varied conferences. This is because they deem US’ authorities will arrest them due to their past openness in revealing flaws that characterize certain Corporations’ products who have filed charges before without their knowledge (Von Lohmann, 2010). Hence, prompting these scientists and researchers to compel conference organizers to hold such events in other non-US states (Von Lohmann, 2010). Other researchers have decided not to reveal their findings all together in the quest of ensuring they have maintained cordial relationship with the US. This is detrimental especially to the unsuspecting customers who may not understand exactly certain flaws that characterize most of the reputable products they have been using (Von Lohmann, 2010). a. Narrative Hook It is irrefutable since the inception of DMCA’s operations numerous scientists have not only expressed their fears concerning DMCA’s potential liability but also suffered gratuitous prosecutions and arrests, for instance, Dmitry Sklyarov1. Arrests and prosecutions normally occur after revealing the results of their varied researches through publishing them in websites. Therefore, current researchers “play safe” by withholding their varied researches concerning flaws, which they have ascertained evident in some digital products, for instance, Mr. Song (who has authored varied security researches) (Von Lohmann, 2010). b. Introduction to the Problem DMCA liability has prompted numerous researchers to withdraw as well as withhold essential researches concerning flaws, which they have ascertained characterizing certain digital products. Since most of these researchers fear prosecutions and arrests once they visit US (Von Lohmann, 2010). Studies have also revealed how certain researchers especially Russian programmers to date decline attending US conferences and prefer them held in other states. This is due to the past information they have revealed concerning flaws evident in some of the most reputable products produced by US corporations for years (Von Lohmann, 2010). c. Purpose Statement This study seeks to ascertain exactly what prompts scientists and programmers decline unveiling essential information, which they have found characterizing some reputable digital products. d. Research Questions and Sub questions i. What is the impact of DMCA liability to both scientists and programmers since its inception to date? ii. What are the researchers’ views concerning DMCA liability? iii. So far, what damages has DMCA liability caused to both scientists and programmers? iv. Does the DMCA liability affect only the US’ scientists and programmers? v. What are some of the examples that indicate DMCA liability has interfered with both researchers and programmers’ legal rights? vi. Is it true researchers and other experts in this field withhold essential information fearing prosecution or barred from visiting US? e. Statement of Significance Scientists, programmers and other respective experts in the digital field have yielded to withholding essential information about flaws, which they have unveiled fearing prosecutions as well as arrest if they visit US2. II. Review of the Literature DMCA liability has prompted researchers and other experts to withdraw information from their websites due to the fear of arrests and prosecutions. This is despite US citing to uphold the essence of researches and innovations intended to advance digital expertise. Therefore, this has prompted corporations to take advantage of numerous loopholes characterizing DMCA liability and continue to produce flawed products for the unsuspecting customers (Ziccardi, 2013). This is via threatening researchers with legal actions if they dare to publicize information in their websites concerning certain inadequacies evident in their products. Ziccardi in his study relays how Blackboard Inc. in April 2003 utilized DMCA liability to stop presentation of security vulnerabilities evident in their products. Revealing of this vital information intended to take place during Interzone conference held in Atlanta concerning ID cards’ security vulnerabilities used by university systems (Ziccardi, 2013). Consequently, this prompted both Hoffman and Griffin decline presenting their research’s contents fearing the encounter of extremely pricey prosecutions, which could even lead to their arrests if they loose (Ziccardi, 2013). This has crippled the advancement of numerous researches and innovations not only among US researchers but also among those emanating from other states due to the fear of arrests once they visit America. For instance, Niels Ferguson from Dutch unveiled serious flaws evident in Intel’s HDCP video encryption system but confessed publicly that he did not intend to put them in his website (Ziccardi, 2013). This is because he was afraid of arrests as well as prosecutions while visiting US for either professional or personal intentions (Ziccardi, 2013). Consequently, this has demoralized scientists and programmers who after incurring expenses in unearthing certain flaws that entail rectifications end up facing extremely pricey charges or even arrests. Since big corporations like Apple Inc. claim these researchers are only out to deface its reputation that has taken many years to build and win client’s trust. Therefore, numerous researchers and programmers view DMCA liability as an Act put in place to “chill” researches because they normally avails much information to the public, which might be misused (DiBona, Stone & Cooper, 2008). This is contrary to the researchers’ intentions whereby most of them comprise students undertaking Doctorate Degrees or Professors in their respective fields (DiBona, Stone & Cooper, 2008). The intellectuals’ intentions entails shedding light on certain innovations that entail rectifications as well as inform the public about the dangers they may incur if they keep on using flawed products. Conversely, Corporations cited as their products bearing serious flaws have retaliated differently whereby instead they claim researchers have malicious intentions intended to ruin their products’ reputation not only in US but also in the worldwide (DiBona, Stone & Cooper, 2008). For instance, Prof. Ed Felten together with his group from Princeton computer department found themselves threatened with lawsuits by RIAA and SDMI’s technology providers (DiBona, Stone & Cooper, 2008). The two bodies claimed Felten together with his team were acting against DMCA liability in revealing information that intended to encourage other parties into circumvention, which is illegal based on US IP laws. RIAA and SDMI claims were utterly contrary to Felten and his team’s actions because they never infringed any copyright law or other IP statute under DMCA liability3. In addition, DiBona, Stone and Cooper (2008) in their study cite researchers view DMCA liability as tool utilized by influential and big corporations to bar information sharing. Hence, prompting numerous innovations stay stagnated due to their hidden flaws known only by fabricators instead of improving to serve unsuspecting consumers as necessitated (DiBona, Stone & Cooper, 2008). This has prompted upcoming digital and existing experts to believe US’ DMCA liability is purposely out to block device’s competitive interoperability. This is especially evident with printer toner cartridges whereby manufacturers only incorporate little scraps of code to these machines with the intention of exploiting the unsuspecting consumers (DiBona, Stone & Cooper, 2008). Scientists and researcher feel they do not have adequate protection against corporations or certain technological bodies. For instance, Prof. Felten and his team in their quest of contacting this study encompassed responding to SDMI’s public plea, which challenged technologists to surmount the then watermarking innovation (DiBona, Stone & Cooper, 2008). To their dismay, these researchers and their employers received lawsuit threats from SDMI barring them from releasing findings to the public (Ziccardi, 2013). This is ridiculous because SDMI after benefiting from the researchers’ knowhow quoted DMCA liability in barring them from releasing results to the public. This act signifies there is no adequate security mechanisms put in place to protect researchers and scientists from exploitation especially by influential Corporations who see them as threat to their flawed innovations (Ziccardi, 2013). To date, DMCA liability has not only “chilled” numerous digital innovations but also proved to be detrimental to both scientists and researchers4. For instance, researchers from other global states to their dismay face serious charges once they visit US where respective corporations cited in their researches accuse them having infringed IP laws. In most cases, charges filed against these researchers are not justifiable in their respective home states, for instance, in the Dmitry Sklyarov's case (Postigo, 2010). Prosecuting and detaining these researchers destroys their reputation, hence criminalizing what they did for the users’ safety. However, those corporations in these researches due to their flawed products use DMCA liability to threaten scientists as well as researchers claiming their actions or intentions are malicious. Therefore, their researches’ information does not have any base but intend to destroy their products’ reputation, which they have built for years. In addition, DMCA based on its current conditions continue to criminalize numerous scientific studies and courses taught in US’ universities5. This is because professors as well as students do not have sufficient freedom to innovate or work on the already existing technology to demonstrate inherent flaws that entail rectifications. Therefore, corporations’ criminalizing every digital research is a selfish act intended to bar the informed people from educating the public concerning flaws characterizing their varied products (Kizza, 2010). DMCA liability besides posing detrimental impacts on US based researchers and scientists; it also threatens intellectuals from other regions when they step in America. In their respective states, non-US researchers and scientists do not have such binding laws prohibiting them from revealing results of their findings about flaws evident in certain products, which the global society normally use. Therefore, most of them only come to realize what they did was contrary to the US’ IP laws when they step in America where they face prosecutions and sometimes detention. Hence, incur expenses while they were on their own personal missions or attending professional meetings, for instance, conferences. In his study detailing impacts of DMCA for a period of 12 years, Von Lohmann cites how other states have ended up issuing travel advisory to their researchers intending to visit US, for instance, Russia. This is after the arrest and detention of Dmitry for five months while in US (Von Lohmann, 2010). In that case, the complaint alleged Dmitry produced a software tool that was capable of allowing unauthorized parties to copy e-books without the authors’ acquiescence (Von Lohmann, 2010). This incident prompted other intellectuals specializing in the same field start boycotting conferences held in America. Hence, compelling organizers to be holding events in varied locations but not in US whereby certain scientists as well as programmers are afraid of prosecutions. To date, numerous digital researchers despite their genuine efforts in advancing their respective fields’ knowhow have encountered threats from varied corporations. Mostly, these include corporations cited in certain researches to have been manufacturing flawed products and selling them to unsuspecting clients. Some of the threatened researchers include Prof. J. Alex Halderman, students Billy Hoffman and Virgil Griffith, Seth Finkelstein and Benjamin Edelman6. However, the latter due to the fear of DMCA liability sought legal permission, which took long than he anticipated to the extent of filing a case though it did not materialize but dismissed illegally (Von Lohmann, 2010). Edelman’s incident is an example of how numerous researchers and scientists prefer withholding vital information instead of risking pricey prosecutions or detention. This is by declining to reveal their findings through either publishing or posting them in their respective websites. Since DMCA liability seems to favor only corporations almost in all their lawsuits while dismissing appeals from digital researchers and scientists as evident during Edelman’s case (Von Lohmann, 2010). This prompts researchers to undertake their respective studies in fear because they do not know what will befall them once the involved companies get to know their plans. This is irrespective of the most studies’ intentions being to pinpoint some of the products’ flaws for the affected parties to rectify them as necessitated. III. Method and Justification This study utilizes qualitative method to compile results already authored by different authors (Thorogood & Green, 2009). This is to support varied arguments relayed in this study as well backing them with valid scholarly literature regarding DMCA liability (Postigo, 2010). Mainly, this method entails consulting of varied and numerous documented sources having the required literature. This is because from the beginning of the study it does not entail any statistics but adequate prove of certain events, which to date have compelled scientists and researchers decline in revealing their findings (Thorogood & Green, 2009). In addition, method used in this study is effective due to its conventional evaluation of varied sources whose information is essential in supporting varied arguments. Consequently, this enables the study’s content to be valid besides being reliable due to effective selection, which the researcher has employed to ensure the contained information is up to date (Thorogood & Green, 2009). IV. Findings Undeniably, digital researchers have resulted to both withholding and withdrawing varied findings from their websites concerning flaws evident in certain reputable products (due to the fear of DMCA liability) (Thorogood & Green, 2009). This is evident in the Fred Cohen’s case whereby he chose to get rid of information concerning “Forensix” software from his website fearing prosecution7. These scenarios not only occur to the US based scientists but also to researchers emanating from other global states. Consequently, this prompts non-US scientists or researchers prefer attending conferences held in other states because they will not encounter arrests after unveiling vital information to the public about flawed digital products, which they have been using. Mainly, these digital products encompass security systems mostly used by institutions like universities to ensure their databases are secure. Based on this study’s information, numerous researchers as well as scientists feel US’ regime through this Acts does not have adequate measures meant to protect intellectuals. This is regardless of professing one of its aims is to enhance digital through intensive research whereas in reality the regime through the court system has allowed influential corporations to threaten scientists with unnecessary lawsuits (Von Lohmann, 2010). Since most of these companies feel once the information is out to the public, they may end up loosing their customers who have used their products for long without suspecting the cited flaws by scientists or researchers8. V. Discussion Numerous scientists and researchers featured in varied studies their tendency of not revealing findings prove the absence of trust with the US’ regime. This is contrary to one of the US’ core intentions, which calls for intensive researches by both scientists and programmers to advance digital products. Hence, prompting digital intellectuals feel unprotected not only the US-based researchers but also those emanating from other global states. This prompts the entire world to perceive US regime is selfish due to its tendency of upholding DMCA liability whose impacts have paralyzed numerous and essentials researches (DiBona, Stone & Cooper, 2008). Hence, this kills both innovation and creativity normally exhibited by young minds that do not have power compared to the influential corporations threatening them with pricey lawsuits. Therefore, US’ regime ought to amend and if possible through the congress trim numerous powers held by DMCA liability. This is because numerous corporations have maliciously embarked on misusing DMCA liability in their quest to continue producing flawed products to the unsuspecting clients. In addition, DMCA has denied US regime together with its varied Corporations chances of advancing their digital expertise among the upcoming talented intellectuals (DiBona, Stone & Cooper, 2008). This is because numerous scientists who could be of good benefit to the state have yielded to declining to visit essential conferences held in US and opt to attend those in other states where they feel protected. VI. Conclusion DMCA ought to amend its policies that seem to demoralize or threaten both scientists and programmers while undertaking their respective studies. This is because it is only through contacting of intensive researches that will ensure effective digital advancement currently, anticipated by US’ regime. Undeniably, the current state of DMCA liability comprises of numerous loopholes, which varied reputable Corporations have maliciously taken advantage with the intention of frustrating any research that seems to reveal their flawed products. This is via threatening scientists as well as researchers who do not have any say but to consent into withholding the necessary information. The withheld information by these researchers is not only beneficial to the clients but also to the respective corporations (DiBona, Stone & Cooper, 2008). Since it is through discovering their flaws and rectifying them that will make them advance technologically. Additionally, other global states will not view US as a state whose intention is to “chill” digital researches using Acts that favor only its corporations by prosecuting and even arresting non-US scientists. Some of the threatened and arrested scientists by US’ regime include Dmitry and Felten whereby the latter ended up declining to unveil findings he claimed to have unveiled (Von Lohmann, 2010). References DiBona, C., Stone, M., & Cooper, D. (2008). Open Sources 2.0: The Continuing Evolution. Sebastopol: O'Reilly Media, Inc. Kizza, J. M. (2010). Ethical and social issues in the information age. London: Springer. Postigo, H. (2010). Information Communication Technologies and Framing for Backfire in the Digital Rights Movement: The Case of Dmitry Sklyarov's Advanced e-Book Processor. Social Science Computer Review, 28(2) p. 232-250. DOI: 10.1177/0894439309336943. Thorogood, N. & Green, J. (2009). Qualitative Methods for Health Research. California: SAGE. Von Lohmann, F. (2010). Unintended Consequences: Twelve Years under the DMCA. Retrieved on 2nd July 2013 from Ziccardi, G. (2013). Resistance, liberation technology and human rights in the digital age. Dordrecht: Springer. Read More