Technology Liberation Front - Latest Comments in The DMCA and Censorship

Re: The DMCA and Censorship

Damian Yerrick — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 12:58:53 -0000

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.

Re: The DMCA and Censorship

Dan — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 18:25:14 -0000

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.

Re: The DMCA and Censorship

Don Marti — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 16:52:29 -0000

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.

Re: The DMCA and Censorship

Brian Moore — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 15:46:55 -0000

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.

Re: The DMCA and Censorship

Steve_R — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 08:51:20 -0000

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.