Copyright Office Supports Law
from the they-did-what? dept
I'm sure this has been covered to death elsewhere, but here's the New York Time's take on the Copyright Office's decision to support the law making it illegal to defeat copy protection schemes. It really makes you wonder just how idiotic people can be sometimes. I don't follow this stuff as closely as many people do (so I'm sure I don't have all the details correct) but it sounds to me as if this is basically the equivalent of saying that they're too stupid to build really secure systems. So, instead of working on something important like that, they're going to chase down the hackers who are pointing out where their security needs help. If someone tells you how you can break into your own house, shouldn't you be obligated to fix the problem rather than ignoring it in order to toss that person in jail?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
And I must take you to task, Mike, for the home security analogy. It's virtually impossible to live in a secure home. I'm all for sending people to jail who prove my home security is inadequate by breaking a window and walking away with my computer.
It may be just as impossible to have a secure computer....?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
The analogy is fine. Yes, home security and computer security are unlikely to ever be pefect. However, I certainly do want people out there figuring out why whatever security precautions I have taken aren't any good. I want those people to publicize the loopholes and what the dangers are so that we can make our security as strong as possible. If someone finds out that the lock on my front door is easily picked using a paperclip, I WANT TO KNOW, so I can change the lock.
This is different then if someone actually comes into my house by using that paperclip method. If they do that, then I'm all for having them arrested. However, this law is the equivalent of having the person who discovered the flaw in the first place jailed. They are saying that it is illegal to even look for flaws in the security system.
If someone breaks in, yes, then I want them to be caught and prosecuted or whatever it takes. However, if someone is finding weaknesses so that I can better protect myself from the people who are breaking in, I want them to be able to do that.
If someone steals your computer, sure, send 'em to jail. But if someone comes along and points out that your window is easily broken and your computer is at risk you want to send that nice person who's trying to help you to jail also? Seems a bit counterproductive to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Home Security Analogy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why copyrights were created....
The security issue is just the industry's lame attempt at trying to control the distribution of their IP. And in my opinion, the tighter they are allowed to control it, the more they go against the original spirit of copyrights. If copyrights control the spread of ideas so much that they restrict the creation of new ideas, then copyrights need to completely reformed. In the end, I think the level of security is irrelevent. It really comes down to: Are you stealing property, or are you using IP "fairly" in a way that promotes new ideas and does not directly hurt the ownership of the IP.
So not allowing DVDs to play on Linux boxes is probably a restriction that limits the creation of new ideas. However, the DMCA could be intrepreted to mean that people who view DVDs on Linux are thieves b/c their "fair use" is not seen that way.
But if people "share" DVD information w/o charging each other or profiting, are they stealing? In a way, yes. In a way, no. I liken it to lending/borrowing a book. The MPAA likens it to breaking in and stealing every hardcopy in their warehouse and littering the streets. Who's right? We'll find out in 3 yrs...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even better analogy
Remember how the first amendment was created to protect people from the government shutting us up and telling us what to do? Well, now we have to teach corporations the same lesson we taught King George.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Argument via anology
But what right do they have to poke and prod your home to see if you have a security problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Argument via anology
The law basically says they can't even try to break into their own house to demonstrate where the security system has a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]