How Closely Is Copy Protection Tied To The DMCA?
from the and-doesn't-that-say-something? dept
Tim Lee has started up a very interesting discussion that deserves a lot more attention. The specific details focus on disagreements among various thinkers concerning whether or not copy protection mechanisms represent a private system for protecting intellectual property, or one backed by governments. However, the much more interesting sub-plot in the article is just how closely attached the DMCA law is to copy protection. While some like to argue that the two are entirely separate, and copy protection is simply a private mechanism -- it's worth noting that those are the same people who are so vehement against any change to the DMCA concerning things like circumventing copy protection technologies. This view has always struck me as odd among groups who talk about how much they support less government in favor of market forces -- because it's essentially supporting the need for government to step in and repeatedly grant monopolies where they may not be needed. No one wants to take away the right of any company to use copy protection should they choose to. Instead, many of us simply see copy protection as a bad business decision, likely to cause more harm than benefits. If that's the case, though, why should it need so much government protection in the form of the DMCA, that appears to take away many of the rights people had in previous generations?
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
As it stands now, they want a copy protection plan that amounts to DRM. The problem with DRM is they want to retain control of data that is sold to someone else. DRM is great for a personal computer or a company computer network in order to protect sensitive data from prying eyes. However, if that data is sold, with or without copyrights, the new owner has the right to use that data in the manner they see fit. If the data is copywrited then the new owner can do whatever with the data except copy it to give away or sell. That would be illegal, but making backup copies for themselves or changing the format to use an application they like should be well within their rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Say you buy... the new craptallica Album. One day while you are in the shower or otherwise busy a friend visiting with their laptop seems the album and thinks "oh cool!" and rips it and you don't even know. From there they go home later and distrobute it or they don't know their systems are insecure and while they are having an unauthorized visit someone sees the ripped album and thinks "Oh cool!" And transfers it then shares it with all they can. All tracks would lead back to you, what did you do? Took a shower.
Now to my biggest question. Do you want to have to register each time you buy music? I for one would boil over, I don't even like it when certain sotres aske me for my name address and phone number when I make purchases in person, if you need some location information for taxes fine, here is my zip code, but other than that... No!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Is watermarking perfect? No! But it's a whole lot better than the music business using DRM restrictions to try to tell me what _I_ can do with with _my_ music after the sale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Also I'm not for DRM, it hinders legimit users, take the latest Foo Fighers Album for example, most mainstream Ipod users couldn't figure out what and how to do. However the albums was still avaliable for download at many illegal sites... Bad, I believe not because of any copy protection but DRM of the authenticator for the Foo Fighter's album One by One I could never get to the extra online content, also bad.
Companies want DRM and we will probably see much more (I dread the whole trusted computing plague that is about to descend on us) because of the DMCA, I believe DRM is tied to the DMCA because of this.
Mess with DRM you face the DMCA, the DMCA is legal where as just DRM is Technological.
With time DRM can be broken (our game) but the DMCA is legal (their game) and thus any one person or small team working to defeat the protection, even if just to see if they can, would never amass a legal team like a bing company can, therefore company wins... so far.
I think its a whole cluster-mess and businesses and consumers are all going about it the wrong way, whats the right way? I'm not sure but its definetly not in this direction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What he said!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM............done.
You are better off downloading a pirated MP3 because tis not tracked.
Why would anyone want to pay for music and get busted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Governments for sale
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Governments for sale
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Governments for sale
I'm sure when Mickey Mouse's copyright is about to expire, we will see another "Mickey Mouse" law (should be called the "Goofy Law", cause it is), which was retroactive the first time around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Governments for sale
[ link to this | view in chronology ]