Even The Copyright Office Won't Obey Rules That Don't Make Sense In Reality
from the just-saying... dept
Law professor Rebecca Tushnet recently somewhat jokingly posted the following bit of irony that she found when going to the US Copyright Office for their hearings on DMCA exemptions:law v. norms, or why anticircumvention law doesn't workNow, this might just be a silly picture, showing how someone at the Copyright Office chose not to obey the "rule" that the door shouldn't be propped open, but Tushnet's "joke" about this showing why anticircumvention law doesn't work, because societal norms trump the law every time, is an important and valuable point. The reason that there is so much infringement isn't because the laws aren't strong enough. It's not because there needs to be more education or greater enforcement. It's that people fundamentally don't believe the laws make sense. Trying to block circumvention doesn't work when the tools make it quite easy to circumvent, and the end result -- propping open the door or being able to do what you want with the content you legally purchased -- just makes too much sense. If only the folks at the Copyright Office recognized that this applies to a lot more than propping open a door, but to the area of the law that they constantly seek to expand.
At the Copyright Office, waiting for the hearings to begin. I did not interact with this setup in any way:
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
Filed Under: copyright office, dmca, rebecca tushnet
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Lawyer needs to stick to the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
AC fantasy interpretation: lawyer is desperate and wants to drag people into nasty political games in order to further some unknown agenda.
Your world is a scary, strange place, fella. Join us in reality, it's much nicer.
"Lawyer needs to stick to the law."
...and I presume she is. Nobody else is sticking to it though, for the reasons she mentioned, which is kind of the point...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Troll needs to stick to the trolling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can all copyright maximalists be forced to write this on the board 100 times please!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If they didn't want to write it on the board, by hand please and not inside a "while" or "if then, else loop", we could invite them to the next meeting of Freetards Revolutionary Front.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You Realize ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You Realize ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You Realize ...
That said, it's conceivable that the door has to be propped open sometimes - say, for example, you're carrying several heavy/cumbersome items through it and it's nonsensical to close and open it every time. Or, perhaps there's people either side of the door and need to communicate effectively and the closed door prevents that.
In short, yeah, it's probably safer to keep it closed. But sometimes, it's just inconvenient.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You Realize ...
Like anti-circumvention technology?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You Realize ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You Realize ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
way to pick out something that has absolutely no bearing on your point of view, but in your pirate mindset, this makes perfect sense
lets also repeal speed limit laws, murder laws, well, hell, any law we dont like, cause "tools make it quite easy to circumvent"
Your pirate mindset is interferring with my right to do whatever I want with property you legally bought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
way to pick out something that has absolutely no bearing on your point of view, but in your pirate mindset, this makes perfect sense
Learn to use quotation marks next time, hurricane head.
>lets also repeal speed limit laws, murder laws, well, hell, any law we dont like, cause "tools make it quite easy to circumvent"
Where in the article was the repealing of laws mentioned?
>Your pirate mindset is interferring with my right to do whatever I want with property you legally bought
If I legally buy something you don't have a right to do whatever you want to it. First sale doctrine and all that. "Pirate mindset" has nothing to do with it.
I'm not sure if you're the real hurricane head or trying to mimic him, but if you're the latter, you're doing a great job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How dare a person have an opinion that's outside of their job, especially one made in jest!
"Your pirate mindset is interferring with my right to do whatever I want with property you legally bought"
Not sure if troll or seriously considers this a right...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Analogy
If we take this analogy further:
Should we abolish speed limits since nobody respects them anyway because they don't believe they make sense? (= abolish copyright)
Or should we make it impossible to exceed speed limits with automatic speed limitation in all cars? (= limit technology that allows copyright infringement)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Analogy
It's interesting that you pick speeding as an example, though. Most people will obey speed limits within reason (though few have problems going slightly over the speed limit, especially in quiet traffic and clear weather). As long as the limit is reasonable, people don't mind following it.
You will notice, however, that people tend to get rather angry when it's over-enforced, the fines are too high or they feel it's being used as a revenue stream rather than to punish/deter offenders. They will indulge in civil disobedience, ranging from flaunting the speed limit, ignoring and fighting tickets, to even vandalising speed cameras. This is for a law that is put into place to save lives and increase road safety.
Now try to imagine why people don't care for following rules that only translate to the profits of a corporation, especially where no legal options are presented. There's definitely a lot of options they can try to stop this, but they have picked only one tactic so far - and it is failing miserably.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Analogy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Analogy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Analogy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Analogy
Carry that over to IP laws and the like, these laws have not changed with the times, its trying to change contrary to the times. its trying to bring people BACKWARDS.
Lets do the murder one. Murder used to be illegal. Period, doesn't matter what the reason was. Now it has exceptions such as self defense, accidental death. it works at trying to look at the not so black and white of it all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Analogy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Analogy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Analogy
Actually...
It's been proven that not having speed limits doesn't (on open highways/freeways) does NOT increase the chances of people getting killed in car accidents. Speed limits, on the other hand DO increase the chances of car accidents and deaths. (Again, on open highways/freeways)
So, if we use your comparison...
Abolishing copyright would make for some awesome innovations, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Analogy
GUH! That's what I get for posting so early in the morning!
It's been proven that not having speed limits (on open highways/freeways) does NOT increase the chances of people getting killed in car accidents. Speed limits, on the other hand DO increase the chances of car accidents and deaths. (Again, on open highways/freeways)
There, that's more accurate!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Analogy
if i get caught doing 80 in a 50, ill be looking at a hefty, several hundred dollar fine and maybe some points on my license
on the other hand, if get caught sharing a few songs.... well you know how that ends
theres your stupid car analogy. still think it works?
and why are you comparing copyright infringement to murder?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Analogy
I'm not comparing copyright infringement to murder, somebody else did.
And yes my "stupid" speed limit analogy works well you've just used it to demonstrate that penalties for copyright infringement are exorbitant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Analogy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Analogy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These things called social norms, we teach them to our kids and then legislate against them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]