I don't think this is really a free speech issue. I fully agree that it is not censorship for the Wall Street Journal not to publish a letter to the editor. However, in this situation, the issue raised relates to how much control a hardware manufacturer should have after the product is sold to the consumer. I would advocate that the manufacturer upon the sale of the product cedes virtually all control to the consumer. This means that third parties should have a right to be able to produce products that work the hardware device in question.
To use the automobile analogy, computer technology now allows Ford to design a car that would fail to operate if it detected a non-authorized Ford part. Clearly this goes beyond the realm of reason.
PS: One of the ploys to deprive the consumer of rights is that the product is "licensed" not "sold". I don't believe this ludicrous slight-of-hand has any validity. Hopefully the courts will see through this absurdity.
Brian Moore
· 2 years ago
What I don't get is why console mfg wants to restrict the functionality of its platform. Sure, you can say "we don't support this" and just have it "work" anyway, just like a PC.
Dell and Gateway don't care when someone releases a controversial computer game, because they know that no one is going to blame them. Use whatever license/contract computers have.
Don Marti
· 2 years ago
Brian, there is a good business model reason for this. Sell the console at a loss, but charge game publishers to sign the games. The number one thing to realize about DRM/DMCA is that, at least in think tank white papers, it facilitates all kinds of absolutely wonderful-sounding business ideas. Give someone a free printer, charge for DRM-restricted cartridges, sell an exploding copy of a movie, whatever.
Dan
· 2 years ago
Unfortunately for the console companies, the DMCA only restricts companies from cracking the codes if those cracks are for the specific purpose of copyright infringement. A game company still retains the right to crack those codes to allow their game to play normally because no copyright infringement will occur.
Damian Yerrick
· 2 years ago
the DMCA only restricts companies from cracking the codes if those cracks are for the specific purpose of copyright infringement.
Citation please. I seem to remember reading in Universal v. Reimerdes that defenses to copyright infringement are no defense to circumvention.
All Comments
To use the automobile analogy, computer technology now allows Ford to design a car that would fail to operate if it detected a non-authorized Ford part. Clearly this goes beyond the realm of reason.
PS: One of the ploys to deprive the consumer of rights is that the product is "licensed" not "sold". I don't believe this ludicrous slight-of-hand has any validity. Hopefully the courts will see through this absurdity.
Dell and Gateway don't care when someone releases a controversial computer game, because they know that no one is going to blame them. Use whatever license/contract computers have.
Citation please. I seem to remember reading in Universal v. Reimerdes that defenses to copyright infringement are no defense to circumvention.