11 comments

• 

  Doug Lay

  2 years ago

  Any talk about full enforcement of copyright law is just academic unless you have an example of an enforcement regime that works. You don't. DRM and the DMCA are laughable failures.
  
  Moreover, these failed attempts at enforcement do impose a cost on blameless third parties - consumers and technologists.
• 

  Don Marti

  2 years ago

  What about considering the proportion of the consequences of enforcement that falls on offenders, and how much falls on innocent people and taxpayers? The DMCA's anticircumvention provisions are like protecting the integrity of hair-based drug tests by imposing a ban on haircuts.
  
  

  We have a "tax on drug use" for alcohol and tobacco.
• 

  Steve R.

  2 years ago

  Singleton's approach is flawed.
  First, the post neglects to mention that the rights of a copyright owner are limited. This leaves the reader with the false impression that the copyright owner has "unlimited" authority to define how copyrighted material may be used.
  Second, the post neglects to mention that, by law, the consumer is entitled to certain privileges when using copyrighted material.
  Third, the post neglects to mention that the content providers are attempting to aggrandize (seizing) rights that they do not currently own at the expense of the consumer.
  Fourth, the post fails to discuss that content owners believe that they have a right to trespass onto a consumers property to "protect" protect their so-called intellectual property. For a lawyer concerned about "property rights" the omission of the content owners complying with due process seems particularly glaring and disingenuous. Is Singleton implying that that certain segments of society have an intrinsic superior property right than other segments and can seize, at will, the property of the less fortunate?
  
  Based on the post, it would appear that consumers have no rights. When a segment of society is trampled on things such as civil disobedience and black markets emerge. Singleton is correct in one sense, a copyright black market currently exists because there is "substantive legal regime" creating it.
• 

  Noel

  2 years ago

  Steve R, you seem to assume that what is omitted above is argued against. In that case, can you list some issues around consumer rights that should always be addressed when talking about copyright policy and enforcement.
  
  Also, keep in mind that many digital goods are licensed, not bought in the sense that you *own* the goods. Many misconceptions of "consumer rights" arise from this distinction.
• 

  Anonymous

  2 years ago

  >> Also, keep in mind that many digital goods are licensed, not bought in the sense that you *own* the goods. Many misconceptions of "consumer rights" arise from this distinction.
  
  Many consumers do indeed feel that they "own" digital goods that they have paid for. Perhaps the consumers are correct and it is the "licensor" who has a misconception.
• 

  Noel Le

  2 years ago

  Regardless of what consumers feel, you cant just go around downplaying piracy to hype up imaginary rights with no other basis than what you regard as a natural right to information.
• 

  Steve R.

  2 years ago

  No one is downplaying piracy. However, piracy is being used as a "red herring" by the content industry to justify the passage of onerous laws to eliminate consumer rights. It is the content industry that is hyping imaginary rights to abuse the consumer.
  
  Remember the Sony rootkit debacle were Sony effectively disabled a users CD drive so that it would not work in certain situations. This is a clear concrete example of the content industry believing that it has an imaginary unilateral right to seize control of property.
• 

  Doug Lay

  2 years ago

  >> Regardless of what consumers feel, you cant just go around downplaying piracy to hype up imaginary rights with no other basis than what you regard as a natural right to information.
  
  Who gets to decide what rights are imaginary?
  
  Any argument that starts out "regardless of what consumers feel" is not an argument that is going to survive long in today's marketplace. The consumer is king.
  
  Also, what do you mean by "you can't just go around downplaying piracy..."? Do you believe in free speech or not?
• 

  Steve R.

  2 years ago

  Noel: On "imaginary rights" Techdirt provides us with a good example of a company extorting a so-called "right" out of thin air. Techdirt reports that MLB is claiming that the use of SlingMedia's Slingbox by persons who have paid to watch content, but wish to watch it later (timeshift), is illegal. It seems logical that if you are unable to watch something that you paid for at the time it was available for viewing that "fair use" would allow you to record it for later viewing.
  
  Mike concludes: "And, the most ridiculous part is that Slingbox is a great tool for baseball fans helping them to get more enjoyment and more value of the game. Yet, MLB is upset because how dare anyone give fans more value without first paying MLB their share."
• 

  eee_eff

  2 years ago

  Solveig makes a rather detailed study of one aspect, that is whether the balck market is prima facia evidence of something being amiss with a regulatory scheme.
  
  It may not always be. However it is very important to note that there are other dimensions to this problem, namely, every regulatory scheme normally entails some loss of freedom and also imposes some costs on society.
  
  The costs, in terms of lost innovation, are a matter of some debate. I believe the lost innovation costs to be too high, and Solveig and many others of the IPCentral tribe, do not.
  
  However, the lost innovation is not the only leg that the argument against DRM and DMCA stand on. In fact, in my accounting, that argument is not needed, because the affront to human freedom is so great that no argument in terms of efficiency and business plans can overcome the hurdle which any argument which proposes to eliminate substantial human freedom, that is the First Amendment, must reach.
• 

  Henry Miller

  2 years ago

  I have to take issue with your claim that use of illegal drugs only effects the customer and close friends. It affects me as well because in our current welfare state I have to pick up the bill for those who were once capable of holding a good job, but are no longer able to live on their own. If we didn't have welfare, and there was no thought of socialized medicine I wouldn't mind, but when your addiction can potentially cost me money I mind.