January 10, 2025

Software and Export Control

Today’s New York Times, in an article by John Schwartz, reports on the availability of export-controlled software outside the U.S. Certain software that has defense applications is not allowed to be shipped to “pariah countries” such as North Korea and Iraq. Unauthorized copies of such software are available for sale in China, and presumably the Chinese sellers would be willing to ship them anywhere.

The article works hard to conflate export violations with copyright infringement, even using the word “piracy” in the title, and claiming that “Digital piracy … has moved into more dangerous territory” as “[a] black market has emerged for scientific and engineering software powerful enough to fall under United States export restrictions.”

The implication is that the Internet is a big part of the problem. And yet a careful reading of the article reveals no evidence that the illicit copies of the software left the U.S. via the Internet (as opposed to being mailed or hand-carried). Certainly the black market in export-controlled software was flourishing long before the Internet became popular.

The real problem is the illusion that a software package can be sold widely, even to customers outside the U.S., without its becoming available to a motivated adversary who wants it. Even if it were somehow made impossible to copy export-controlled software packages, our adversaries would still be able to buy or steal authorized copies.

This is obvious to people who have experience in the export-control wars. Stewart Baker, who was General Counsel at the National Security Agency during the crypto export control debates, points out the folly of the current approach:

To his mind, Mr. Baker said, [these] problems are part of a broader trend of mistakenly looking at national security issues as problems for law enforcement. “O.K., you can’t prosecute ’em,” he said. “Well, duh.”

Rubenfeld on Copyright and the Constitution

October’s Yale Law Review has an interesting article by Jed Rubenfeld, entitled “The Freedom of Imagination: Copyright’s Constitutionality.” (Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer and not a legal scholar, so I’m not fully qualified to judge the scholarly merit of the article. What you’re getting here is my semi-informed opinion.)

Rubenfeld argues, convincingly in my view, that standard claims about copyright and freedom of speech don’t stand up to scrutiny. He argues that copyright as now enforced places unconstitutional limits on free speech.

He goes on to explore how copyright can be made constitutional. This involves a detour to discuss the meaning of the First Amendment, followed by the laying of a new framework for copyright. He finds that copyright’s ban on literal copying is constitutional, but the rules regarding derivative works need to be adjusted.

Whether this ultimately is correct is beyond me, but I think the article is worth reading if you’re interested in these issues. I would like to hear the opinions of any readers who are lawyers.

[Link credit: Kitchen Cabinet]

Tech Provisions in Homeland Security Bill

Orin Kerr, over at the Volokh Conspiracy, summarizes some tech-related provisions in the new Homeland Security bill.

The bill changes the sentences that can be assessed for some computer crimes. The effect of these changes is unclear but will likely be small. The widely discussed life-sentence-for-hacking provision applies only in cases when the crimes deliberately or recklessly kill people; but such crimes are already punishable under state murder statutes. There is also an increase in the penalty for intruding into people’s email.

The bill also makes some changes in wiretap law, granting more power to law enforcement. I won’t attempt to further compress Kerr’s already-compressed explanation; read it yourself if you’re interested.

UPDATE (12:49 PM): Ted Bridis points out that the life-sentence-for-hacking provision applies even to attempts to kill people. This might in some cases allow prosecutors too much leeway.

Why I Wike the Web

Evewy so often you discovew an onwine sewvice that you nevew knew you needed. My discovewy today is the Diawectizew, which twanswates any web page into one of eight mostwy humowous diawects. Oh, dat scwewy wabbit!

To wead the west of Fweedom to Tinkew in Ewmew Fudd diawect, cwick hewe.

Pavlovich Decision

The California Supreme Court has ruled that Matt Pavlovich can’t be sued in California state court for posting DVD decryption software (though he can probably be sued elsewhere). Apparently, the key issue was whether Pavlovich’s knowledge that his action would affect California companies was by itself enough to give California courts jurisdiction. The Court ruled that it was not.

Denise Howell at Bag and Baggage has a quickie analysis of the opinion.