Mossberg Takes On Copy Protection
from the some-things-right,-some-things-wrong dept
While the arguments over copy protection technology usually hit on the same old points, one interesting thing over the last year or so is that, as the technology has become much more common with copy protected CDs everywhere, the debate itself is becoming more mainstream. Take, for example, Walt Mossberg joining the debate over copy protection. It's a good read, and there's some stuff for everyone in there... and that's part of the problem. While those opposed to copy protection will be happy to see him suggest that everyone boycott copy protected content, his column swings and misses on a few big issues. First off, he pulls out the old "theft" issue. Sharing unauthorized content often is illegal -- no doubt about that -- but, that doesn't mean it's the same thing as "theft." Even the Supreme Court has made it clear that referring to unauthorized copies as stolen is misleading. It can be illegal, but so many factors are different (the big one being that nothing is "missing") that calling it theft is not just incorrect, but biases the discussion heavily. Mossberg also tries to suggest that copy protection should only be used to stop the "serious pirates," while average users should be given quite a bit of leeway for fair use copying. Of course, Mossberg doesn't actually seem to suggest how that might be done -- perhaps because it's impossible. The "serious pirates" will always figure out a way around copy protection -- because if something can be played or viewed there's always going to be a way to copy it. And, how do you limit one group but not another? Still, the biggest fault of the piece is that it misses the real point of the debate: that embracing what consumers want usually is good for business and quite often will grow a market tremendously. Just look at every single technology that the entertainment industry has tried to stop in the past century or so -- and see how, time and again, the technology they thought would kill them ended up saving them, instead. The reason this happens is because those new technologies offer people more: more choice, more flexibility, more opportunities, more enjoyment, more value. Any business that actively opposes giving its own customers more value is going in the wrong direction.
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
Copy Protection
I was asked to review the game and see if I could get it to install, after all they paid for the title but could not play it. I discovered a way in under 1 hour on how to not only allow the game to be installed by totally defeat the copy protection system that was used. Without defeating the copy protection system (a violation of the DMCA I am sure) they would not have been able to use the title they paid for.
Companies are going too far trying to protect their titles, and actually making it so that some percentage either has to make the game 'pirate ready' or never be able to play it. If they really dont want people to pirate their games they shouldnt make it so much fun to break their protection :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copy Protection
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copy Protection costs
V1 Professional site license (for a firm or a company) $399.99
CSS (Content Scrambling System) Encryption - No additional Charge
So at least it shouldn't be reducing production budgets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New Business Models needed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]