The examples given in the argument are bogus, conflating 'easily removed by anyone' with 'easily removed by the administrator-owner of the machine'. Security software or content filters installed by parents or libraries are on machines owned and controlled by the parents or libraries, not by the children or users, so whether or not the children can remove the software is irrelevant. I'm almost willing to go out on a limb and say that there is no way you can come up with a legitimate example whereby an administrator/owner of a machine should be prevented from removing software from a machine they own. I suppose one could argue that one should be able to contract away that property right, but it isn't like any of the offending programs actually offer up such a contract in any meaningful way- none of them says at install or purchase time 'this will install stuff that might break your computer and will be impossible to remove' in any way that can be considered a morally binding contract.
Doug Lay
· 4 years ago
Excellent point about the protectionist, market-distorting DMCA (more specifically, the protectionist, market-distorting anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA). Of course, I doubt the PFF folks will respond at all to this argument, or if they do, it will be something along the lines of "if you oppose the DMCA, you must hate intellectual property." Yawn.
Cog
· 4 years ago
I've already commented on your other thread about how the damages from Sony's rootkit can in no way be characterized as small. Give your post above, I also want to comment that, from an economic perspective, it doesn't matter how the damage awards from the Sony lawsuit are divided between consumers and lawyers. That's a matter to be determined by the market in litigation services. The most important thing is that Sony (and the market) be sent a signal: you may not inflict this sort of nonconsensual externality on consumers. Sony took this action precisely because of the absence of signals such as this one, and if you fail to punish Sony and all who behave like Sony, then you'll only see more of the same.
eee_eff
· 4 years ago
An important item to elaborate on, mentioned above:
From Edward Felten's excellent blog:
"...It's not surprising, then, that at least one important angle has gone nearly undiscussed in the mainstream press: the likelihood that the Sony/First4Internet XCP copy protection software itself infringes several copyrights. (Note to geeks: Slashdot doesn't qualify as the mainstream press.)
Matti Nikki (a.k.a. Muzzy) and Sebastian Porst have done great work unearthing evidence pointing to infringement. They claim that the code file ECDPlayerControl.ocx, which ships as part of XCP, contains code from several copyrighted programs, including LAME, id3lib, mpglib, mpg123, FAAC, and most amusingly, DVD-Jon's DRMS.
These are all open source programs. And of course open source is not the same as public domain. Open source programs are distributed with license agreements. If you copy and redistribute such a program, you're a copyright infringer, unless you're complying with the terms of the program's license. The licenses in question are the Free Software Foundation's GPL for mpg123 and DRMS, and the LGPL for the other programs. The terms of the GPL would require the companies to distribute the source code of XCP, which they're certainly not doing."
Solveig Singleton
· 4 years ago
Hi guys. Just time for quick answers to some of the above:
1) I used the term "hacker" rather than "cracker" because "hacker" was the term used in the blindmindseye post. I'm aware of the difference.
2) Re the DMCA: Yes, some of the arguments above apply to the DMCA as well (indeed that was what I was obliquely referencing when I referred to tech bans). The argument with respect to the DMCA would be somewhat different, however. There one of the issues is whether a legal rule of some kind is needed for more basic ground rules about content to be enforceable. If the answer is yes, it is needed, then the question becomes whether any proposed exceptions (including some of those that turn on intent) swallow the rule. I think it is a harder problem than any offending DRM. Indeed I think it is a very hard problem.
2) The question of how damages are distributed between customers and lawyers in class action suits, is, I am afraid, very much *not* a result of the market, but of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; these were, in fact, deliberately designed to *alter* the outcome of the market, which would simply not support the kinds of suits that we see here.
That's all for now.
Tim
· 4 years ago
Ms. Singleton,
In my opinion, the DMCA is neither necessary nor helpful to enforcing creators' rights under copyright law. In fact, I'm working on a Cato Policy Analysis making precisely that case. It will be out early next year, and I'll be sure to send you a copy.
I'm very interested in a Cato paper like that, particularly because Cato has, in past releases, been very up on DMCA and DRM (such as with the Einhorn and Rosenblatt paper on DRM and P2P, although I can't recall if the DMCA was mentioned specifically in there).
Thanks.
eee_eff
· 4 years ago
"1) I used the term "hacker" rather than "cracker" because "hacker" was the term used in the blindmindseye post. I'm aware of the difference."
Well, then you should have corrected their mis-use of the term. Re-read 1984 and study the parts which talk about the corruption of language.
"2) Re the DMCA: Yes, some of the arguments above apply to the DMCA as well (indeed that was what I was obliquely referencing when I referred to tech bans). The argument with respect to the DMCA would be somewhat different, however. There one of the issues is whether a legal rule of some kind is needed for more basic ground rules about content to be enforceable. If the answer is yes, it is needed, then the question becomes whether any proposed exceptions (including some of those that turn on intent) swallow the rule. I think it is a harder problem than any offending DRM. Indeed I think it is a very hard problem."
All of these very hard problems are created by the DMCA, and attempts to make an unjust, repressive law fit in to a legal system which has a history of rejecting such laws. The simplest and most logically consistent thing to do is to realize the DMCA itself is wrongly conceived, in terms of balancing property rights against First Amendment rights.
"2) The question of how damages are distributed between customers and lawyers in class action suits, is, I am afraid, very much *not* a result of the market, but of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; these were, in fact, deliberately designed to *alter* the outcome of the market, which would simply not support the kinds of suits that we see here."
Markets are created by the actions of man, and that includes legal actions, such as The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. These rules create a market for legal services to benefit society, by providing those who would be without a voice in the legal arena with a voice.
I could just as well say that the creation of the USPTO *altered* the market, which would not support the types of Monopolies we see today. (e.g.: Microsoft.)
In summation, Solveig responds only to some criticisms, but is unable or (unwilling to recognize) the inherent problems with the sustained assault on the Bill of Rights being waged by corporations, and in particular the line that because a corporation had the intent of maintaining their profits, their illegal actions could be held to a lower legal standard than if a cracker was trying to steal my credit card, say.
I find this repulsive, and just another of the several hundred ways in which we are surrendering our rights to corporations, and granting them special legal protections and rights.
It time for a little balance here, and individuals such as Edward Felten, Dmitri Skylarov, and every linux user are being repressed by corporations who are seeking to destroy our freedoms. Is there any concern that this is some how wrong?
All Comments
From Edward Felten's excellent blog:
"...It's not surprising, then, that at least one important angle has gone nearly undiscussed in the mainstream press: the likelihood that the Sony/First4Internet XCP copy protection software itself infringes several copyrights. (Note to geeks: Slashdot doesn't qualify as the mainstream press.)
Matti Nikki (a.k.a. Muzzy) and Sebastian Porst have done great work unearthing evidence pointing to infringement. They claim that the code file ECDPlayerControl.ocx, which ships as part of XCP, contains code from several copyrighted programs, including LAME, id3lib, mpglib, mpg123, FAAC, and most amusingly, DVD-Jon's DRMS.
These are all open source programs. And of course open source is not the same as public domain. Open source programs are distributed with license agreements. If you copy and redistribute such a program, you're a copyright infringer, unless you're complying with the terms of the program's license. The licenses in question are the Free Software Foundation's GPL for mpg123 and DRMS, and the LGPL for the other programs. The terms of the GPL would require the companies to distribute the source code of XCP, which they're certainly not doing."
1) I used the term "hacker" rather than "cracker" because "hacker" was the term used in the blindmindseye post. I'm aware of the difference.
2) Re the DMCA: Yes, some of the arguments above apply to the DMCA as well (indeed that was what I was obliquely referencing when I referred to tech bans). The argument with respect to the DMCA would be somewhat different, however. There one of the issues is whether a legal rule of some kind is needed for more basic ground rules about content to be enforceable. If the answer is yes, it is needed, then the question becomes whether any proposed exceptions (including some of those that turn on intent) swallow the rule. I think it is a harder problem than any offending DRM. Indeed I think it is a very hard problem.
2) The question of how damages are distributed between customers and lawyers in class action suits, is, I am afraid, very much *not* a result of the market, but of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; these were, in fact, deliberately designed to *alter* the outcome of the market, which would simply not support the kinds of suits that we see here.
That's all for now.
In my opinion, the DMCA is neither necessary nor helpful to enforcing creators' rights under copyright law. In fact, I'm working on a Cato Policy Analysis making precisely that case. It will be out early next year, and I'll be sure to send you a copy.
I'm very interested in a Cato paper like that, particularly because Cato has, in past releases, been very up on DMCA and DRM (such as with the Einhorn and Rosenblatt paper on DRM and P2P, although I can't recall if the DMCA was mentioned specifically in there).
Thanks.
Well, then you should have corrected their mis-use of the term. Re-read 1984 and study the parts which talk about the corruption of language.
"2) Re the DMCA: Yes, some of the arguments above apply to the DMCA as well (indeed that was what I was obliquely referencing when I referred to tech bans). The argument with respect to the DMCA would be somewhat different, however. There one of the issues is whether a legal rule of some kind is needed for more basic ground rules about content to be enforceable. If the answer is yes, it is needed, then the question becomes whether any proposed exceptions (including some of those that turn on intent) swallow the rule. I think it is a harder problem than any offending DRM. Indeed I think it is a very hard problem."
All of these very hard problems are created by the DMCA, and attempts to make an unjust, repressive law fit in to a legal system which has a history of rejecting such laws. The simplest and most logically consistent thing to do is to realize the DMCA itself is wrongly conceived, in terms of balancing property rights against First Amendment rights.
"2) The question of how damages are distributed between customers and lawyers in class action suits, is, I am afraid, very much *not* a result of the market, but of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; these were, in fact, deliberately designed to *alter* the outcome of the market, which would simply not support the kinds of suits that we see here."
Markets are created by the actions of man, and that includes legal actions, such as The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. These rules create a market for legal services to benefit society, by providing those who would be without a voice in the legal arena with a voice.
I could just as well say that the creation of the USPTO *altered* the market, which would not support the types of Monopolies we see today. (e.g.: Microsoft.)
In summation, Solveig responds only to some criticisms, but is unable or (unwilling to recognize) the inherent problems with the sustained assault on the Bill of Rights being waged by corporations, and in particular the line that because a corporation had the intent of maintaining their profits, their illegal actions could be held to a lower legal standard than if a cracker was trying to steal my credit card, say.
I find this repulsive, and just another of the several hundred ways in which we are surrendering our rights to corporations, and granting them special legal protections and rights.
It time for a little balance here, and individuals such as Edward Felten, Dmitri Skylarov, and every linux user are being repressed by corporations who are seeking to destroy our freedoms. Is there any concern that this is some how wrong?