If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress

from the call-in-time dept

We recently wrote about a bill being introduced in Congress that would help fix the DMCA by making a very minor, but important, set of changes to the anti-circumvention clauses of the DMCA. As you may recall, Section 1201 of the law says that it's against copyright law to circumvent "technological measures" designed to prevent you from accessing something, even if the purpose of bypassing those measures is not to actually infringe on any copyright. That's why we end up with crazy situations like it being illegal to "unlock" your mobile phone. A bipartisan group of Representatives have introduced this new bill, the Unlocking Technology Act (HR 1892), which makes it clear that if you circumvent technological protection measures to do something that doesn't infringe, then that, itself, is not a violation of copyright law. This doesn't "weaken" copyrights in any way. Those who break DRM to infringe are still violating this clause. All it does is stop the absurd situation where you are found to "violate" copyright law despite not infringing on anyone's copyright.

It's difficult to think of any reason why this bill shouldn't become law.

And, of course, because of that, there's an uphill battle to get Congress to actually support it. FixTheDMCA -- the group that first put forth the petition that got the White House to agree that you should be able to unlock your mobile phones -- is now running a call-in campaign, asking people to call their Congressional representatives, to let them know that they should support the bill.

It's a pretty simple question: do you actually own the products you buy? Most people think that they do, but under the current text of Section 1201, the anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA, you don't. Here's a chance to fix that basic premise and to make it clear you own what you buy. Seems like something Congress should easily support, so now might be a good time to let them know that.


Reader Comments (rss)

 
AJ is just excited that he found something that appears to prove his point. If only he weren't begging the question fallaciously every time he'd almost have made a valid point. By the way, using a fallacy while accusing someone else of a fallacy is called irony.

Let me explain. The basic premise of your argument is wrong. You are saying that removing the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA weakens the rights of copyright holders because removing the anti-circumvention clause weakens the rights of copyright holders. This is a logical fallacy known as "begging the question" (as opposed to the common use where it means creating a question). Repetition of your fallacy does not improve it's validity.

The second part of your statement must be argued for the initial postulate to be valid. In other words, you must first explain how making circumvention of protections for non-illegal uses of copyrighted material in any way affects the rights of copyright holders.

For example, let's take another set of laws. It is illegal for you to break into my house. It is not illegal for you to enter if I give you permission, and it is always legal for me to enter my own house barring something like a restraining order. Let's imagine it is also illegal to climb into a house through a window since that is circumventing the security of the house.

Now, as a homeowner, I have the right to prevent unauthorized entry to my home. If I accidentally lock myself out of the house, and climb in through a window, should I be prosecuted for breaking and entering under the clause of the law that states going through the window is illegal? And if that law were removed, so it is now legal for *me* to enter my house, but still illegal for an intruder, does that diminish my homeowners rights in any way? Either way the right to enter my house is unaffected...someone entering illegally is illegal, regardless of the method, and someone entering legally should not be a criminal for entering through an "illegal" method.

So what Mike stated is correct...the actual copyrights of copyright holders are unaffected by this change. The ability to take legal activity and treat it as illegal simply due to the method would be removed. This may help reduce the abuse of copyright law for non-copyright purposes but does nothing to diminish the copyrights themselves.
—JP Jones

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Akari Mizunashi (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 12:02pm

    Pointless. Why create a new law when it's clear the existing law is broken?

    Waste of time. I have zero faith in a Congress that can't even take the time to fix the problems which made the DMCA an issue to begin with.

    We don't need new laws. We need the existing laws corrected.

    And obviously, my calls to my (Ind) senators have done nothing to make this happen.

    Do that, instead of supporting this law, please.

    Tell Congress to fix what they broke in the first place.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Shmerl, May 21st, 2013 @ 12:18pm

    It's difficult to think of any reason why this bill shouldn't become law.

    There can be one reason, the same that brought the DMCA idiocy into existence - DRM lobby's desire for control over various technologies.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 12:18pm

    I have never given a shit about any of this.

    My digital music is all backed up on several devices as well as the provider's cloud.
    My e-books are stripped of all DRM, converted and backed up on several hard drives and on my Ubuntu One account.
    I share music and e-books with my friends and family because that is what culture is all about.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 12:20pm

    Re:

    Pointless. Why create a new law when it's clear the existing law is broken?


    This law fixes the old law.

    Waste of time. I have zero faith in a Congress that can't even take the time to fix the problems which made the DMCA an issue to begin with.

    That's what this law does.

    We don't need new laws. We need the existing laws corrected.


    That's what this law does.

    And obviously, my calls to my (Ind) senators have done nothing to make this happen.


    Your calls alone won't, but lots of calls will.

    Do that, instead of supporting this law, please.


    Uh, again, that's what this law does.

    Tell Congress to fix what they broke in the first place.


    Again, that's what this law does.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Edward Teach, May 21st, 2013 @ 12:24pm

    Blimey, that' s Overt, Mate!

    Arrrrr! Good on ye, ye're a good ship mate to do that!

    However, there's a larger issue. If something is illegal, it's possible for the law, even if typically unenforced, to be used in special circumstances.

    Also, there's a general "chilling effect" of something like the DMCA's non-circumvention provision. Any dual-use tool, like a disassembler, or some such, becomes potentially illegal. Nobody wants to come up on the pointed end of a Federal charge in the USA, even if the charge is grossly unfair and probably unconstitutional and maybe even illegal relative to other statutes. So, potentially useful tools don't get developed, sold or circulated. Research is driven underground. When reverse engineering is outlawed, only outlaws will reverse engineer. I remember that some Indian police departments found this out: nobody legit could do some decryption they wanted done.

    Down with non-circumvention!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2013 @ 12:28pm

    The biggest problem for the law passing, Obama supports it

    Opposition parties are sometimes pretty darn blatant about opposing anything the president supports, simply because the president supports it. And this sadly will likely become another one of those issues if it suddenly did start to gain traction in congress.

    Just look at the whole Sequester thing. Republicans opposed it and blamed it on Obama, until Obama opposed it, then Republicans decided to support it and refuse to repeal or replace it like Obama asked.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    icon
    average_joe (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 12:34pm

    This doesn't "weaken" copyrights in any way.

    Wow, really? Of course it weakens copyright law--that's why you support it. Copyright law currently makes it illegal to circumvent certain technological measures. That is REGARDLESS of whether once circumvented, a person engages in copyright infringement. This would allow people to engage in circumvention, thus weakening the existing law that does not allow such circumvention. The only thing this does is weaken copyright law. And you would not support it otherwise. That you can't admit this is comical.

    All it does is stop the absurd situation where you are found to "violate" copyright law despite not infringing on anyone's copyright.

    Why is that absurd? Anticircumvention is a different wrong than infringement. Copyright law is not only concerned about infringement.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    icon
    average_joe (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 12:35pm

    Re: Re:

    This law fixes the old law.

    And it does so by WEAKENING copyright law, which is the ONLY reason why you support it. But, yeah, pretend like it doesn't weaken anything. Hilarious.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Shmerl, May 21st, 2013 @ 12:38pm

    Re:

    You should reconsider your attitude, since there were people who were actually prosecuted based on this invalid law.

    Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Computer_Entertainment_America_v._George_Hotz

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Shmerl, May 21st, 2013 @ 12:42pm

    [q]Anticircumvention is a different wrong than infringement[/q]

    Who said it should be wrong? The DRM lobby? Everyone else says it's not wrong.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    Chosen Reject (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 12:43pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    You've made the claim. Now support it. Let's say I'm infringing copyright law in some way that is illegal now but won't be if this bill is passed. Now tell us, what am I doing?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Shmerl, May 21st, 2013 @ 12:45pm

    Re:

    Anticircumvention is a different wrong than infringement

    Who said it should be wrong? The DRM lobby? Everyone else says it's not wrong. So this new proposal expresses the view of the public. And it should repeal the invalid law of the DRM lobby which was forced on the public previously.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Ruben, May 21st, 2013 @ 12:48pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    AJ, it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that copyright is too restrictive and draconian. Why in the hell should works be tied up in this system for a hundred plus years? Who's benefiting from that arrangement? This is a huge reason why there's so little respect for copyright law.

    And it never should have been change to opt-out. Copyright as an opt-in system is the way was intended.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    icon
    average_joe (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 12:49pm

    Re:

    You miss the point. Under the current law, it is illegal to circumvent certain access controls. This is so even if once circumvented, the person does not commit copyright infringement. Under the change that Mike supports, it won't be illegal to circumvent those same measures even if the person does not commit copyright infringement. Thus, the very same act that is currently illegal under copyright law would become legal under the proposed change. This is clearly a WEAKENING of copyright law; the rights held by copyright owners will be weakened. That Mike is pretending that it's not a weakening is priceless. I'm not saying that it's a good idea or a bad idea. I'm merely pointing out the irrefutable fact that this would weaken copyright law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    icon
    average_joe (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 12:50pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    That is irrelevant to my point. This would weaken copyright law. Mike's claim to the contrary is totally bogus. Can anyone refute my actual point?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    Chosen Reject (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 12:50pm

    Re:

    Copyright is solely concerned with infringement. That's what copyright law is all about. The whole basis of copyright law is to make it illegal for people to copy and distribute certain works under certain circumstances. Anticircumvention laws are only about making it illegal for people to circumvent technical reasons why they can't copy, but it doesn't take into account that copyright law is only about stopping the copyring/distribution of certain works under certain circumstances. Not all works and/or under all circumstances. Anticircumvention stops all works under all circumstances.

    This isn't weakening copyright law; it's restricting copyright law to be just copyright law. If there were a section of copyright law that dealt with embezzlement and a bill was proposed to remove it from copyright law to it's own section, would you call that a weakening of copyright law as well?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 12:50pm

    Re:

    Wow, really? Of course it weakens copyright law--that's why you support it

    I said it doesn't weaken *copyrights*. I said nothing about the law. It changes the law, but it does not weaken anyone's copyrights.

    If you weren't so desperate to attack me on every post, you might try actually reading what I wrote.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 12:52pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    That is irrelevant to my point. This would weaken copyright law. Mike's claim to the contrary is totally bogus. Can anyone refute my actual point?

    It changes the law. It does not weaken anyone's *copyright* which is what I claimed.

    But here you are throwing a temper tantrum pretending I said what I didn't say.

    You do that all too frequently.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 12:52pm

    Re:

    "Copyright law is not only concerned about infringement."

    Yes, it is concerned with reducing the rights on consumers to enjoy what they buy in any way they see fit.

    I pay for the damn thing so I will bloody well enjoy it and back it up multiple times.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    icon
    average_joe (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 12:52pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If you bypass certain access controls now, you are violating the DMCA. If after this is passed you bypass those same access controls, you may not be violating the DMCA. This weakens the DMCA since it makes certain activities that used to be illegal and makes them legal. This LESSENS the rights that copyright owners currently have.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 12:53pm

    Re: Re:

    That Mike is pretending that it's not a weakening is priceless.

    That AJ is pretending I said something I didn't, and then going on one of his trademarked temper tantrums, is priceless.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    Chosen Reject (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 12:55pm

    Re: Re:

    But anticircumvention should never have been under copyright law. Note I'm not saying it should never have existed (it shouldn't have, but that's a different argument); I'm saying it should have been part of some other section of the law. Anticircumvention was a power grab by copyright law.

    If SCotUS started to make treaties and Congress told them to stop, it wouldn't be a weakening of SCotUS, it would simply be putting them in their place. That anticircumvention was ever a part of copyright law is wrong (that it was ever a part of the law at all is another wrong for another discussion).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 12:55pm

    Re: Re:

    Pfft. I bought every song/album I have. I bought every e-book I have. I will enjoy them however I please.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 12:57pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What is your point and maybe we'll refute it? Support your claim that it will weaken any copyright protections.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    Dirkmaster (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 12:57pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Gee, ain't that just too f'in bad.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 12:58pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    It shouldn't have ever existed. All it does is punish the innocent fan who paid his hard earned money on content.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    icon
    average_joe (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 12:59pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Pulling out the old "temper tantrum" trope. Classic. And, of course, you're not addressing my point.

    Currently, copyright holders have a legally enforceable claim against those that circumvent access controls. This is regardless of whether those people engage in copyright infringement. Under this proposal, copyright holders would no longer have that same legally enforceable claim against people that circumvent access controls yet do not engage in copyright infringement. Thus, this would give copyright holders LESS rights than they currently have. Under the proposed change, there would exist people against whom the copyright holder does not have a legally enforceable claim which under the current regime they currently do have such a legally enforceable claim. This is a WEAKENING of copyright holder's rights.

    Please address my actual point directly, if you would.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    PRMan, May 21st, 2013 @ 12:59pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Correct. It lessens the DMCA, not copyright. The DMCA goes beyond copyright in a bad way and should be fixed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    icon
    Chosen Reject (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 12:59pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What rights are lessened? You still have the right to add copy protection measures to whatever you want to (copyrighted or not). I still don't have the right to copy your copyrighted works under those certain circumstances, but now I would have the right to copy non-copyrighted works all the time or copyrighted works under those circumstances.

    The only directions I see rights going here is an increase in rights the people should already have. But copyrights aren't weakened at all.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    icon
    average_joe (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 1:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Good grief, read my posts. Right now, copyright holders have a claim against those that bypass access controls to engage in noninfringing uses. Under the proposed change, copyright holders would not have a claim against those that bypass access controls to engage in noninfringing uses. Thus, copyright holders would have LESS rights than they currently do. I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing. I'm pointing out that it is indeed a weakening of copyright law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    PRMan, May 21st, 2013 @ 1:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Our point is that the DMCA was intended to enforce copyright but has gone way beyond that into harming American tinkering efforts vs. the rest of the world.

    People are starting to recognize that we have lost the ability to tinker and come up with new ideas and that many new ideas are now starting in other countries instead of America.

    This will harm you as well, if you live in America, but you are too greedy/foolish/stupid to see it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    icon
    Keroberos (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 1:02pm

    Put up or shut up.

    You actually have to make a point before anyone can refute it. You've been asked once by Chosen Reject, and now I ask you again. Support your claim. If you can't, your statements on this subject are meaningless.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Shmerl, May 21st, 2013 @ 1:02pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    The point is, it's not about enjoying any albums. It's about fixing a law which is harmful and have no good reason to exist.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    icon
    average_joe (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 1:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The DMCA is part of copyright law, so weakening the DMCA weakens copyright law. It's taking rights away from copyright holders.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    PRMan, May 21st, 2013 @ 1:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So, you admit to using the DMCA to attack people breaking controls for "noninfringing uses" (your words).

    So, you have admitted that it went too far, thereby proving our point.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    icon
    average_joe (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 1:04pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'm admitting what the text of the DMCA says. Bypassing accessing controls violates copyright law, regardless of whether once bypassed the person engages in copyright infringement or not. It's two separate torts under the Copyright Act.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    PRMan, May 21st, 2013 @ 1:04pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I'm pretty sure that GeoHotz bought his PS3 and all the games he played on it too. And he begged publicly that his Linux fix not be used to further piracy. Didn't stop Sony from trying to ruin his life.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    icon
    average_joe (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 1:04pm

    Re: Put up or shut up.

    Read my posts. I've said the same thing several times now. Sorry if you're not understanding my point.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    Chosen Reject (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 1:05pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So you're talking about a case where someone has done nothing wrong except assert their fair use rights? Copyright has never been about stopping all forms of copyring and distribution. The antircircumvention clause tried to add that, and did so in such a way as to end run around fair use, and to include all sorts of circumstances where copyrights weren't involved at all. That's why the DMCA is cited by printer manufacturers and why it prevents unlocking phones. Those issues have nothing to do with copyright. The anticircumvention clause was misplaced in copyright law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    icon
    average_joe (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 1:07pm

    Re: Re:

    I said it doesn't weaken *copyrights*. I said nothing about the law. It changes the law, but it does not weaken anyone's copyrights.

    What do you mean by "copyrights"? And are you admitting that this does weaken copyright holders rights?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Shmerl, May 21st, 2013 @ 1:07pm

    Re: Re:

    The fact that someone called section 1201 of DMCA part of the copyright law doesn't make it really related to copyright in any way.

    Circumvention of DRM has nothing to do with copyright in itself. It might affect copyright, it might not. It's like saying that usage of wheels should be regulated by criminal law, since robbers use cars to rob banks (Cory Doctorow's analogy).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 1:08pm

    Re: Re: Put up or shut up.

    Read Mike's post again. As usual, you have misunderstood what he wrote.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    icon
    Chosen Reject (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 1:10pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If we added murder to copyright law does that mean murdering someone is an infringement of copyrights also? It doesn't belong there. You can debate about whether it should be a law, but it doesn't belong in copyright law. It is being used by all sorts of entities that have nothing to do with copyrights. It can be used to lock up non-copyrighted works, or even non-works (such as hardware). It is not a copyright law, so it's removal either from title 17 or from law altogether in no way weakens copyright law. That some copyright holders were able to use it is no different than that copyright holders are also protected by murder laws.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    icon
    average_joe (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 1:10pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    That AJ is pretending I said something I didn't, and then going on one of his trademarked temper tantrums, is priceless.

    Cute, but let's stick to the merits. What did you mean by "copyrights," then? And please address my point and explain whether you agree that this will indeed weaken copyright holders' rights. Thanks.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2013 @ 1:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    And so what is the problem with changing the law to remove making certain appropriate behaviors from being challenged via tort?

    The argument about weakening or not weakening is a red herring. Either you believe that circumventing protections to use a product you purchased should be allowed or you don't. If you don't, then why, or what would you propose instead of this law to ensure people aren't the target of inappropriate torts?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    icon
    Chosen Reject (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 1:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I agree 100%. My point above was simply that even if it were to exist, it shouldn't be part of title 17 of the US Code.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    icon
    Chris Rhodes (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 1:12pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Me rooting my phone takes rights away from copyright holders?

    Explain.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 1:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Sony can kiss my arse. I shall continue ignoring their shit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    icon
    Keroberos (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 1:15pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    How does this weaken copyright? How does engaging in non-infringing uses have anything at all to do with copyright? This is the most idiotic argument I've heard on this subject. Non-infringing use of copyrighted material was always legal before the DMCA. Everything that was infringing and therefore illegal under the copyright laws from before the DMCA, will still be illegal if this passes. Everything that was infringing and therefore illegal under the copyright laws from after the DMCA, will still be illegal if this passes. What changes? Nothing, other than your masters loose some control that they shouldn't have had in the first place.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    The Turing Institute, May 21st, 2013 @ 1:18pm

    Re: average_joe

    Congratulations average_joe! Based on your logical fallacies, your countless attempts to debate "Mike", and your furious backpedaling on the current topic, the Institute has determined that you are not now, or ever have been, an artificial intelligence.

    Further analysis indicates you are either: a meat puppet for Big Copyright, or a gerbil.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    icon
    average_joe (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 1:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I think Mike's argument that this proposal wouldn't weaken "copyrights," assuming he means the exclusive rights under Section 106, is a red herring. His argument seems to be that since it's still illegal to violate the rights under 106, then permitting circumvention doesn't weaken those rights. But the very purpose of the anticircumvention provisions is to protect those 106 rights, and by weakening the provisions, those rights are not as fully protected. I personally don't have a problem with the DMCA, and I think that this proposal would in essence gut the efficacy of the provisions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2013 @ 1:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "" Under the proposed change, copyright holders would not have a claim against those that bypass access controls to engage in noninfringing uses.""

    If someone engages in noninfringing use then they are not breeching the law and as such a non infringing use would not be subjected to face action against a copyright holder as there would no breech of copyright for which a copyright holder would not be able to take action as no breech of copyright has occured.

    "" Thus, copyright holders would have LESS rights than they currently do.""

    You make it seem that copyright holders should have the right to take action against something that is non infringing and not in any way breeching copyright. Well if a copyright holder does not own the copyright to something then they have no right to take action against something that they don't own the copyright too. What you want is for the copyright holder not only to control what they own the copyright too but also to control the use of something that they do not own the copyright too also.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    icon
    Chris Rhodes (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 1:20pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I'll spell it out for you:

    * Copyright holders have many legal rights.
    * This does not imply that every legal right they have is related to copyright.
    * Previously, they had a legal right to prevent me from modifying my own property, even in situations where no copyright violation occurred.
    * If this legislation passes, they will no longer have that right.
    * The removal of that specific legal right has nothing to do with their legal copyrights, which are still in full force.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    icon
    silverscarcat (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 1:23pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    How so?

    By making it LEGAL to take your stuff and make it work the way you want it to so you can use it for legitimate stuff?

    Like say, if I wanted to Jailbreak a Nintendo 3DS so I could import Japanese games, how is that taking rights away from Nintendo?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    icon
    Keroberos (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 1:26pm

    Re: Re: Put up or shut up.

    No, I think I've got your point pegged. Your masters aren't concerned about infringing or non-infringing. They're concerned about loss of control. Which is what this bill does--puts the control over peoples' legally purchased items back into their hands and not in the rights-holders'.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2013 @ 1:26pm

    Re:

    Common discussion topic from an Ethics and Computing course for a Comp Sci major:

    -You are using a software created by Vendor1 that generates large amounts of encrypted data files with your content.
    -Vendor1 stops supporting this version of the software package, wanting you to purchase a new version.
    -You instead decide that Vendor2's software offering is now better for you.
    -Vendor2's software will not read the data from Vendor1's encrypted files.
    -Vendor1 will not assist in extracting your data.

    Back before the DMCA, it was ruled LEGAL in multiple cases to reverse engineer in order to ensure compatibility, data recovery, etc... This was in the early days of computing with attempted vendor lock in.

    Under the current DMCA, if you attempt to write a script to circumvent the encryption in order to extract your own data into a new format, you would run afoul of the current anti-circumvention laws in an attempt to retrieve your own data. The crime ... wait for it ... copyright violation. Do you honestly not see the irony in this situation?

    Prosecution would depend only on how vindictive Vendor1 is feeling that day.

    How would you solve this common problem to software developers?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    icon
    silverscarcat (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 1:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Pah! You have no problem with the DMCA?

    How about all the legitimate Fair Uses that get taken down daily? How about the fact that the DMCA doesn't allow me to buy a phone from Sprint, then, when my contract runs out, run it on, let's say Straight Talk for how I want because it's locked onto Sprint.

    There's nothing about copyright in that, buskahosa.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    icon
    tawsenior (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 1:27pm

    If I don't own what I buy...

    then I shouldn't have to pay to get it fixed when it breaks. I should just pay a monthly lease and the vendor can replace my game disk / cell phone / vcr / gamebox / etc when I have a problem with it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    icon
    Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 1:29pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Copyright (US version) - To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    Mr. Applegate, May 21st, 2013 @ 1:30pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    It will allow you to uninstall or otherwise disable the spyware placed on the phone by your provider, the manufacturer... It will allow you to move your phone to a different carrier.

    Allowing you to control the device you paid for is utterly ridiculous.

    See every market is trying to prevent you from owning what you buy and pay for.

    If I by a CD I can resell it. I buy digital music I can't. Same exact music different format. That is why to this day I refuse to buy digital copies of music or movies.

    If you root your phone you might uninstall all their tracking software. You might even put that phone on a different carrier, or resell it. We can't have any of that, those are lost sales. Lost sales of devices, loss sales of your personal information and loss of you as a carrier customer.

    Remember you as a lowly customer are to have no rights. It is your responsibility to give over all your hard earned income for nothing substantial in return.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    icon
    silverscarcat (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 1:32pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What copyrights are being weakened, buskahosa?

    Just because it'll allow me to use MY property that *I* legally purchased the way *I* want to and not the way *THEY* want me to doesn't mean that it weakens copyright.

    If I buy a cellphone, a PS3, or a 3DS right now, they are region/service locked and breaking that lock is against the law, even if I legally purchase a game/service from another region/service provider so that I can play/use the game/service.

    I'm pretty sure that's wrong.

    Or did you miss the case where the Supreme Court slapped down the textbook publisher and said first sale doctrine trumps your copyright?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    icon
    silverscarcat (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 1:33pm

    Re: Re: average_joe

    I think gerbils could be taught to understand better.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    icon
    average_joe (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 1:34pm

    Re: Re: average_joe

    I haven't backpedaled one inch. Rather than admit that this would weaken copyright holders' rights, Mike has run away. Nor has he, or will he, explain how this won't weaken copyright holders' exclusive rights under Section 106. For example, the proposal would amend Section 1201(2)(A), the antitrafficking provision, to make it illegal only to traffic in circumvention tools that are intended to facilitate infringement (as opposed to facilitate circumvention, as it is now). This means that tools for circumvention could be freely trafficked in. Saying that it's still illegal to use those tools to infringe is silly. Of course people would use them to infringe. This would weaken "copyrights" since it would make it even easier to infringe. I'd love for Mike to address this, but that would involve discussing the merits of some claim he made.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2013 @ 1:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Under current US law, rooting your Android phone is against the DMCA.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    icon
    average_joe (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 1:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    As the law stands, it's illegal to circumvent access controls or to traffic in such access controls. This protects copyright holders' exclusive rights. Removing those protections would weaken those rights. Hence, Mike's support of the proposal. That it would still be illegal to infringe misses the point that this would make it EASIER to infringe.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2013 @ 1:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    He already explained that in his post. I am trying to figure out what you meant.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    icon
    average_joe (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 1:38pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What copyrights are being weakened, buskahosa?

    Allowing the trafficking of technologies that can be used to circumvent access controls would weaken copyright holders' rights--both their exclusive rights under Section 106 and their anticircumvention rights under Section 1201. The fact that Mike supports this should tell you that it weakens copyright rights.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    icon
    average_joe (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 1:42pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I thought he was talking about copyright holders' rights under the DMCA, but even if he means the rights under Section 106, those would clearly be weakened as well. Permitting the trafficking of technologies that can be used to circumvent access controls would weaken copyright rights since people would obviously use them for infringement despite infringement being illegal. He's trying to say that by taking away these copyright holders' protections, their rights will somehow not be weakened. It's silly. I don't care if you or he or anyone is for this proposal, but at least admit that it weakens copyright holders' rights.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    icon
    Jay (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 1:44pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    And please address my point and explain whether you agree that this will indeed weaken copyright holders' rights.

    The public benefits from weakened damages, increased production, and other added benefits. Copyright is not weakened. It's more in line with the demands of the public that benefits.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    identicon
    rapnel, May 21st, 2013 @ 1:47pm

    I suppose you want to allow anyone you'd like to stay in your home too? Friggen kids.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2013 @ 1:47pm

    rather than ask Congress that when you have actually bought something, why would you not own it, perhaps the thing to ask them is on what occasions do the members of Congress consider that anything they have bought is not actually owned by them? how many items have they bought that they think they are not entitled to sell on, give away or part exchange, should they choose to? how many items have they, their families or any of the children bought that they then think they dont own but are actually only renting or have a license to use it until the producer decides you cant use it any more or makes using it impossible?

    maybe if they were to ask themselves questions like these, they may then understand what the hell people are talking about and why they get SO FUCKING ANNOYED WHEN THEY ARE STOPPED FROM DOING WHAT THEY WANT WITH SOMETHING THEY HAVE PAID OUT HARD EARNED CASH FOR!!!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 1:49pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Which is utterly ridiculous.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 1:50pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Wait, I thought unlocking was illegal but rooting was fine?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    icon
    silverscarcat (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 1:58pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You know, most of us are rolling our eyes at you.

    Because, honestly, AJ, if you buy something, shouldn't you *OWN* the thing?

    And, according to the First Sale Doctrine, which TRUMPS copyright law, once you buy something, you can do what you WANT to it, no questions asked.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    icon
    silverscarcat (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 2:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'm sorry, no, wait, I'm NOT sorry at all, that clause really is total B.S. and goes against nature.

    If you own something, you can DO WHAT YOU WANT WITH IT!

    The first sale doctrine, the Supreme Court's ruling on the matter of buying something and then re-selling and doing what you want with it, states that copyright law does NOT trump a person's right to do with property as they please.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2013 @ 2:12pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Exactly. Further more, there are uses that copyrighted material may that are allowed by law, therefore, making something available for uses allowed by low, would now be legal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77.  
    identicon
    Shmerl, May 21st, 2013 @ 2:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You claim that dropping section 1201 (which is a fence around DRM) will weaken DRM, which will weaken copyright protection, which might lead to copyright infringement. Too far fetched of a claim. DRM is already one level removed from copyright. DMCA/1201 is one level more removed from copyright. DMCA/1201 doesn't protect copyright. It protects DRM. I.e. it's a preemptive policing of the second order (where DRM is a preemptive policing of the first order).

    So you are talking about some non tangible potential of affecting copyrights, while you ignore that DMCA/1201 very concretely violates users ability to exercise fair use. Therefore dropping DMCA/1201 will restore concrete users' rights and will not really affect any copyrights. Ignoring this is hypocrisy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78.  
    identicon
    Shmerl, May 21st, 2013 @ 2:27pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Our point is that the DMCA was intended to enforce copyright

    At least in the context of section 1201 this isn't correct. From the start it wasn't about protecting copyright. It was about protecting DRM. Creators of DMCA 1201 knew it perfectly well. See below.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  79.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2013 @ 2:30pm

    Re: Re: Re: average_joe

    This means that tools for circumvention could be freely trafficked in.

    As opposed to the reality where they are freely trafficked in?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  80.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2013 @ 2:33pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    That it would still be illegal to infringe misses the point that this would make it EASIER to infringe.

    Yes, because it is soooo hard to infringe anything these days.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  81.  
    icon
    That Crazy Freetard (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 2:37pm

    The beloved Average Joe hath descended on these comments spewing all about how passage of this act would weaken Copyright law. Going into all sorts of detail, citing statue, etc.

    Ok, I'll grant you that, Joseph, but answer this: why is that a bad thing?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  82.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2013 @ 2:47pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So far and I have read all your previous postings you are 100% correct.

    And! That is the issue.

    You are correct!

    Absurd as it sounds you are correct which only shows how over board copyright in the US is.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  83.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2013 @ 2:49pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: average_joe

    No no, he's got a point. I was circumvented once...worst fucking day of my life, man. Keeping circumvention tools out of the hands of those vicious infringers, well, that's just a slice of watermelon in mid-August.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  84.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2013 @ 2:52pm

    Can we include Adobe in this? I'd like to 'own' my software, too!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  85.  
    icon
    Digdug (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 2:58pm

    Re:

    The only way this revision could POSSIBLY weaken copyright is if, by rooting/unlocking alone, folks were reverse engineering the technology/software of a given device. Then you'd be dead to rights in terms of violation, provided it was proved in court anyway

    I bought the damn thing and so long as I'm not 'stealing' content with it or causing physical/mental distress to someone else with it, I should be able to do whatever the hell I want with it. If I want to move to another carrier with it, so be it. If I want to install apps that the almighty Apple doesn't like, go me. If I want to sell it to my mother-in-law for $20 I should be able to do that too.

    If you disagree with the idea that what you buy (not license or rent a service/product) is YOURS and not "yours until we say so" then you've got problems, period. I didn't lease a phone, I bought one.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  86.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2013 @ 2:59pm

    Re: Re:

    The solution is so very simple that some one with your insight should have immediately thought of it.

    DMCA is a US law. US laws are valid only the US.

    Send your data to China or India. They can legally extract it, they can do it much cheaper than you can, you can spend the day sleeping while the data is processed, and helps the Indian economy which makes the elitists happy.

    See solution simple.

    Everyone happy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  87.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2013 @ 2:59pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Currently, copyright holders have a legally enforceable claim against those that circumvent access controls

    True, and that would disappear, but it isn't a COPYRIGHT claim. It's just a claim the copyright holder has as an extension of a law put in place to protect copyright.

    Just because it's an issue covered in a bill that protects copyright (among other things) doesn't mean it's copyright issue.

    Therefore, "fixing" (liberal usage of the word) the issue has no effect on copyright. That's the point you're failing to understand.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  88.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2013 @ 2:59pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "It's taking rights away from copyright holders."

    And restoring rights to consumers, boy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  89.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2013 @ 3:07pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Copyright law was made for the public benefit. By fixing the dmca the way mike supports fixing it you make copyright's core stronger

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  90.  
    icon
    JP Jones (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 3:14pm

    AJ is just excited that he found something that appears to prove his point. If only he weren't begging the question fallaciously every time he'd almost have made a valid point. By the way, using a fallacy while accusing someone else of a fallacy is called irony.

    Let me explain. The basic premise of your argument is wrong. You are saying that removing the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA weakens the rights of copyright holders because removing the anti-circumvention clause weakens the rights of copyright holders. This is a logical fallacy known as "begging the question" (as opposed to the common use where it means creating a question). Repetition of your fallacy does not improve it's validity.

    The second part of your statement must be argued for the initial postulate to be valid. In other words, you must first explain how making circumvention of protections for non-illegal uses of copyrighted material in any way affects the rights of copyright holders.

    For example, let's take another set of laws. It is illegal for you to break into my house. It is not illegal for you to enter if I give you permission, and it is always legal for me to enter my own house barring something like a restraining order. Let's imagine it is also illegal to climb into a house through a window since that is circumventing the security of the house.

    Now, as a homeowner, I have the right to prevent unauthorized entry to my home. If I accidentally lock myself out of the house, and climb in through a window, should I be prosecuted for breaking and entering under the clause of the law that states going through the window is illegal? And if that law were removed, so it is now legal for *me* to enter my house, but still illegal for an intruder, does that diminish my homeowners rights in any way? Either way the right to enter my house is unaffected...someone entering illegally is illegal, regardless of the method, and someone entering legally should not be a criminal for entering through an "illegal" method.

    So what Mike stated is correct...the actual copyrights of copyright holders are unaffected by this change. The ability to take legal activity and treat it as illegal simply due to the method would be removed. This may help reduce the abuse of copyright law for non-copyright purposes but does nothing to diminish the copyrights themselves.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  91.  
    icon
    crade (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 3:45pm

    You can't fix it now.. You just finally managed to force Canada to put it into our law. :(

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  92.  
    identicon
    Anonymous, May 21st, 2013 @ 3:51pm

    I'd like to own the money I earned by my labor instead of having it stolen by the government before I even see my check. Yeah, maybe now would be a good time to call congress about that. Let's see how that works out.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  93.  
    icon
    crade (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 3:52pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I agree. It is complete nonsense so it must be part of copyright law. If you are not doing anything related to copying anything or even related to copyrighted content in any way, you are infringing on copyright. Makes sense in a copyright law kinda way. Must be part of copyright law. Gold Star!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  94.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 4:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    > Under this proposal, copyright holders would
    > no longer have that same legally enforceable
    > claim against people that circumvent access
    > controls yet do not engage in copyright
    > infringement

    Why should they have such a claim in the first place, especially when giving them that claim takes away my ability to use my own property the way I want to?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  95.  
    icon
    Anonymous Monkey (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 4:08pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    and now... with the L0 keys in the public... the PS3 is now, and forever, hacked ... Wonder if Sony got what they wanted..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  96.  
    icon
    crade (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 4:08pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The fact that this change specifically only deals with the case where there is no copyright infringment involved *does* tell you that it cannot possibly weaken copyrights. It does weaken the ability to harrass people for other reasons that are not related to your copyrights, though... That is the whole point.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  97. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    icon
    average_joe (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 4:09pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You don't own a single piece of property that you can do whatever you want to with. If I guy a brick at the hardware store, I can't litter the streets with it or break your windows with it. My rights are limited despite owning it. But if you're asking why the DMCA was enacted to begin with, I'd suggest that there's lots of ink spilled on the subject and you should do some research of your own.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  98.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 4:12pm

    Re:

    Let me explain. The basic premise of your argument is wrong. You are saying that removing the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA weakens the rights of copyright holders because removing the anti-circumvention clause weakens the rights of copyright holders. This is a logical fallacy known as "begging the question" (as opposed to the common use where it means creating a question). Repetition of your fallacy does not improve it's validity.

    That's not what I said. The anticircumvention provisions strengthen copyright holders' rights by making it more difficult to circumvent access controls. Those access controls make it more difficult to infringe. By making it legal to traffic in these circumvention technologies, that in turn makes it easier to infringe.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  99. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    icon
    average_joe (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 4:15pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    That AJ is pretending I said something I didn't, and then going on one of his trademarked temper tantrums, is priceless.

    Where'd you run off to, Mike? Pretending like I'm having a "temper tantrum" so you can get out actually discussing your argument on the merits is your trademarked move. I know some of the dumber ones buy it, but wouldn't you rather just thrash me about on the merits? I'd love to chat with you about these things, but I suspect that, as you've done so many hundreds of times before, you're too chicken. I don't get it. I'm not that intimidating, am I?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  100.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 4:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    DMCA/1201 doesn't protect copyright. It protects DRM.

    It protects DRM which protects copyright.

    So you are talking about some non tangible potential of affecting copyrights, while you ignore that DMCA/1201 very concretely violates users ability to exercise fair use. Therefore dropping DMCA/1201 will restore concrete users' rights and will not really affect any copyrights.

    It does indeed make it more difficult to engage certain types of fair use. But there is no RIGHT to fair use, only a privilege. So it doesn't violate your rights. It just makes it more difficult to exercise a privilege in certain ways (but not others).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  101.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 4:26pm

    Re:

    No problem, if there's one thing the USG does very well, it's hypocrisy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  102.  
    icon
    silverscarcat (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 4:49pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Those are stupid arguments, AJ.

    Stop using stupid arguments.

    if you throw a brick at someone or something, you cause harm, thus your rights interfere with someone else's rights to live. In that case, your rights are trumped.

    So, AJ, kindly, use some fucking common sense for once in your miserable life.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  103.  
    icon
    Chosen Reject (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 4:51pm

    Re: Re:

    Those access controls can still be used. No law (neither in existence, nor proposed (including this one) will stop you from doing so. This proposal simply states that those copy protection measures no longer have the force of law. It does not lessen the punishments for infringements made by bypassing copy protection measures. It does not remove rights copyright holders have.

    There are few (if any) copy protection measures that haven't been broken, and there is still the analog hole. No work that has copy protection measures is safe, nor would it be difficult to copy them. People who want to infringe on a work will do so regardless of the anitcircumvention clause. By removing it, all that is happening is that the rights of people are being given back to do things that are not otherwise illegal (such as unlocking phones, fair use copying, copying public domain works, etc). Those who violated the anticircumvention clause to infringe are still committing infringement, while those who violated it for non-infringing purposes are no longer breaking the law.

    What exactly do you have a problem with in this case? How exactly is copyright law being weakened?

    Not only that, but the law disagrees with you completely. Section 1201(c) states:
    Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected.(1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.
    If nothing in 1201 affects the rights of copyright holders, repealing it cannot possibly affect those rights either.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  104.  
    icon
    silverscarcat (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 4:52pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    It protects DRM which protects copyright.

    hoo hoo hoo!

    that is Wrong! Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG!

    DRM does NOT protect copyright. DRM is a POS that entertainment industries put up so that people couldn't make legitimate copies of their CDs, DVDs, or Video Games because the publisher didn't want that.

    In fact, AJ, DRM specially controls how content is used. There is *NOTHING* about DRM related to copyright OTHER than the DMCA.

    So, go back to your MPAA masters and tell them that DRM may just be outlawed soon.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  105.  
    icon
    Chosen Reject (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 4:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Fair use is the default. Copyrights infringe on fair use rights. By upholding the law, we all agree to that, so it's OK. But that doesn't change what it is.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  106.  
    icon
    silverscarcat (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 4:55pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Oh, and one more thing, buskahosa...

    But there is no RIGHT to fair use, only a privilege.

    that's a flat-out lie!

    Copyright is the privilege, not Fair Use. Fair Use is the right and is how creativity fucking works!

    But you'll just ignore what I say like you ignore everything else that counters your little world, won't you?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  107.  
    icon
    silverscarcat (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 4:56pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    No, you're just such a dumbass troll that he's done arguing with you because you'll just go, like you're doing now, "LALALALALALALALALALALALA!!! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!! WHY YOU NO DEBATE ME?! LALALALALALALALALALALALALALA!!!!" with your fingers in your ears.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  108.  
    identicon
    Shmerl, May 21st, 2013 @ 4:58pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    It protects DRM which protects copyright.

    So you agree that DMCA 1201 is not directly related to copyright, it's directly related to DRM. Relation to copyright is indirect. Now you have to convince everyone that such relation will affect any copyrights if DMCA is to be dismantled. You'll have really hard time doing it. Firstly, the presence of DMCA doesn't really reduce the breaking of DRM. If DRM is breakable - it will be broken, DMCA or not. Secondly DRM itself doesn't really affect copyright - as practice shows DRM doesn't prevent infringement, all it does it is annoying legitimate users by crippling the usability.

    So to put it shortly, you have a defective method (DRM) that doesn't protect copyright, but pretends that it does. Because of its deficiency, there is another defective method (DMCA), which doesn't protect DRM, but pretends that it does. And you are saying that removing this second level defective layer will affect copyright? It's laughable. I'd say - scrape them both (DMCA and DRM) and it won't affect any copyright. Surely scraping the DMCA is a good first step.

    Fair use argument goes only on top of this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  109. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    icon
    average_joe (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 5:06pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The only one behaving like a "dumbass troll" is you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  110.  
    icon
    silverscarcat (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 5:17pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So says the dumbass troll, huh?

    I'm just calling it like I see it, AJ.

    No matter how many times we've told you that this isn't about weakening copyright, but rather about letting owners have control of their items, you just put your fingers in your ears and go "NO! IT'S WEAKENING COPYRIGHT! DEBATE ME, MIKE! WHY YOU RUN AWAY LIKE A COWARD?!"

    So, really, AJ, you're the dumbass troll.

    All of your points have been countered and you just keep replying with the same lies.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  111.  
    icon
    JMT (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 5:26pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "And are you admitting that this does weaken copyright holders rights?"

    Let's play your silly game. YES, it would (not "does") weaken copyright holders rights, by taking away legal rights they absolutely should not have. These rights contradict the true purpose of copyright (encouraging creativity) so removing them does not weaken copyright one bit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  112.  
    icon
    JMT (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 5:32pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "It protects DRM which protects copyright."

    "Protecting copyright" may be the stated purpose of DRM, but it is not the intended purpose (that would be control, not protection) nor is is the real-world result. As a protection measure it's proven to be completely ineffective.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  113.  
    icon
    JMT (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 5:37pm

    Re: Re:

    "The anticircumvention provisions strengthen copyright holders' rights by making it more difficult to circumvent access controls."

    Wrong. The law does not make it any more difficult to circumvent access controls. Your claim is laughably ignorant of reality.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  114.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 5:37pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So you agree that DMCA 1201 is not directly related to copyright, it's directly related to DRM. Relation to copyright is indirect.

    That seems a bit of a stretch. That's like saying my window and door locks only protect my windows and doors from opening, not the contents of my house. It's like saying my alarm system only indirectly protects my stuff.

    Firstly, the presence of DMCA doesn't really reduce the breaking of DRM. If DRM is breakable - it will be broken, DMCA or not.

    Sure. DRM gets broken. But if it's illegal to traffic in it, then that makes it harder to obtain and utilize. I understand that hardcore pirates (Mike's bread and butter) won't be affected, but it stands to reason that the more difficult and underground something is, the less people will use it.

    Secondly DRM itself doesn't really affect copyright - as practice shows DRM doesn't prevent infringement, all it does it is annoying legitimate users by crippling the usability.

    You're assuming that the same amount of infringement would occur in the absence of DRM. I don't think you can show that. And given the fact that copyright holders are so protective of DRM, it seems to me that they think it has an effect on infringement. Again, hardcore pirates will pirate their little hearts out. But the harder it is to infringe, the less people will do it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  115.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 5:41pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    So you think that making it illegal has no effect whether anyone uses it? That makes little sense to me. The more difficult to use and underground something is, the less people will use it. I know the TD meme is that nothing stops pirates ever so there's no use in ever doing anything to try and stop them, but I don't think that's true. Only on TD do disincentives not actually disincentivize anyone.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  116. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    icon
    average_joe (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 5:42pm

    Poor Mike. Too chicken shit to back up his argument when challenged. He has his flock do his dirty work. Oh well, I thought for a second that Mike was actually going to engage me. Forgot who I was dealing with for a second. Mike doesn't discuss issues on the merits. That's not his bag. Later folks.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  117.  
    icon
    Akari Mizunashi (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 5:50pm

    Re: Re:

    Mike,

    I applaud your fervor for trying to do something to correct the issues, even if it means "one step at a time", but the problem is the "fix" is covering an issue that, in my opinion, isn't as relevant as the rest of the law.

    If someone came to you an claimed patching a leaky hole in a dam is fixing the dam, how much credibility would you put into the remark?

    The hole obviously indicates there's a problem with the dam, just as the anti-circumvention clause indicates there's a problem with the law.

    I know I should be much more supportive, but I suppose I'm just tired of getting my hopes up only to see the crushed as either not enough people stand up to repair the dam or that the faulty contractor bribes enough politicians to make the issue go away another day.

    This is what this law does. It pushes the bigger issues away for another day, and until this day arrives, businesses (who are trying to serve those very customers complaining they can't do with their product as they want) are being closed down due to the much, much bigger problem of the DMCA: take down notices and false claims of copyright ownership.

    Bigger fish to fry, and this law seems to be going after goldfish rather than the white whale.

    Good luck with this fight, but I hope no one minds I sit this one out.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  118.  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 6:02pm

    Re:

    "I'd like to own the money I earned by my labor instead of having it stolen by the government before I even see my check."

    Yeah, we can do that. Everything that the tax money pays for (roads, sidewalks, street lights, police, firemen) will from this day forth be payed for by you directly.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  119.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2013 @ 6:05pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    >You're assuming that the same amount of infringement would occur in the absence of DRM.

    If there's no DRM preventing me from making a backup I wouldn't have to download a copyright-infringing copy of the same file, you pinhead.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  120.  
    identicon
    Shmerl, May 21st, 2013 @ 6:15pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You're assuming that the same amount of infringement would occur in the absence of DRM. I don't think you can show that. The harder it is to infringe, the less people will do it

    Can you show that the presence of DRM decreases infringement in any significant manner? You can't. And those who created DMCA couldn't possibly show it. Empirical evidence however shows, that even with DRM present, content is pirated. The moment DRM is scraped - content is pirated as if DRM didn't exist. Even if DRM slightly slows this process (on the time which it takes to break it) - it's hardly relevant, since DRM is usually broken pretty fast.

    However, besides all these points, DRM itself is unethical. Therefore DMCA 1201 should be considered unethical.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  121.  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 6:15pm

    Re:

    You have made no such challenge. You've just bitched and moaned like you normally do when proven wrong.

    AJ, let me give you some advice. You're never going to convince anyone to join your side by making insane arguments like you do. If you want to get people to agree with you, you may want to use some logic every now and then.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  122.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 6:15pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "The more difficult to use and underground something is, the less people will use it."

    Heard of a little thing called the Prohibition? It was a little thing, you might not have heard of it, but it was a period in the 1920's when you couldn't buy alcohol. Shocking, I know. The government went around saying it was illegal to buy beer, and punished anyone they could find.
    Guess what happened? Even though it technically was difficult to buy beer (you couldn't do so openly, you had to be circumspect about it, go through shady channels, basically some amount of effort) and it was underground by default seeing as how it was illegal...people still continued to drink. In large numbers. The US government threw 15,000 agents last I checked at this, and failed completely.
    This was because the PEOPLE didn't want it to be illegal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  123.  
    icon
    silverscarcat (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 6:16pm

    Re:

    And AJ has left feeling superior to everyone even though he lied his way through all the comments!

    Find out what happens next time on Techdirt, the ongoing chronicles!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  124.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 6:19pm

    Re:

    Yeah, Mike is sooo chicken shit, he responded no less than 3 times to you at the time of writing this comment.
    Here's one way you can try and be taken more seriously. Don't say something so obviously false, that all anyone has to do to check its veracity is simply scroll up and down.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  125.  
    icon
    silverscarcat (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 6:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    This was because the PEOPLE didn't want it to be illegal.

    WELL...

    Technically speaking, people *DID* want it to be illegal, at first.

    However, people soon found out that their scapegoat of alcoholism being all of the problems of society was a falsehood and the fact that you had to now DEAL with them instead of being able to drink to try and forget them, even for a little bit, caused real issues.

    So now, people wanted alcohol to get away from problems, but it was illegal, so they started to make their own.

    And that was how organized crime came into being in the 1930s.

    Once alcohol was legal again, though, most of the organized crime either went away or moved onto something else.

    Huh... I wonder if that should be applied to marijuana or something.

    Something to think about.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  126.  
    identicon
    Shmerl, May 21st, 2013 @ 6:47pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    That seems a bit of a stretch. That's like saying my window and door locks only protect my windows and doors from opening, not the contents of my house. It's like saying my alarm system only indirectly protects my stuff.

    Bad comparison. If you want a valid analogy, you can compare the use case that involves DRM and DMCA to the owner of the house (end user) who goes to the store vendor (content owner) and buys a product (content). Product is copyrighted, so the vendor protects it (puts DRM on it). Protection entitles a spybot and electrified protective wrap which accompany the product to user's house.

    User comes home and attempts to use the product. Spybot which now spies on the user in user's own house notifies the user with red lights that most probably user is a criminal, lest use will attempt to duplicate the product. User tries to unwrap the product, but the sneaky wrap refuses to be removed and notifies the user that user can only peek through the wrap with special tool X from the vendor. User most probably doesn't even have a tool X, or has a tool Y, which doesn't really help.

    Now frustrated user finds a special tool Z which disables the annoying and potentially dangerous spy bot and its flashing lights and disintegrates the nasty wrap and then finally gets to the product.

    With all that, somewhere in background the Big Brother creates a rule which says "you can't disable the bot, you can't remove the wrap with any tool" and etc. It doesn't prevent one from doing it, but it forbids it. Makes a lot of sense, right?

    So in order to "protect" the product, the vendor created a privacy violating bot and really irritating wrap which user has to disintegrate first to get some sensible and comfortable user experience. But to scary users off from doing it, there is also a DMCA, which users view as lunacy, since they really need to disable the bot which is an outright spy for who knows whom and they need to remove the wrap, since they have no need to buy any ridiculous tool X - they already have tool Y.

    Bottom line - DMCA/1201 doesn't protect DRM and doesn't prevent its breaking. DRM itself is a crooked and unethical methodology which shouldn't even exist in the first place. Both should be gone of for good.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  127.  
    icon
    JP Jones (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 7:23pm

    Re: Re:

    That's not what I said. The anticircumvention provisions strengthen copyright holders' rights by making it more difficult to circumvent access controls. Those access controls make it more difficult to infringe. By making it legal to traffic in these circumvention technologies, that in turn makes it easier to infringe.

    Ah, I think I get the fundamental difference in viewpoint that's causing the issue. Let me see if I understand this correctly.

    In your view, copyright is a natural right that creators of works possess. They created it, therefore they own it, and anyone else who accesses must follow their rules. "Fair use" is an exception that temporarily diminshes the creator's rights in order to allow the public access to certain allowed uses of the work, such as parody or news reporting. Is that close?

    Because that's the opposite of my view, and arguably of the Constitutional view. In my view copyright is a temporary right granted to creators to supress my natural right to do with it whatever the heck I want.

    To take it to a real world example, if one of my friends tells a story at a party, what "right" does he have to that story? I can tell the story, change the story, or do whatever I want with it, as people have always done. People copy each other reflexively and naturally; look up the concept of "mirroring" in psychology. They have no natural right to their stories, ideas, and behaviors that prevent other people from mimicking or using in their own way. How do you think dialects start?

    In other words, "copyright" is a commercial protection of culture to encourage the creation of more culture. Put another way, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." The key part in both concepts is the purpose or intent...in my version the "encourage the creation of more culture" and in the Constitutional language "To promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts."

    You seem focused on the rights of creators as if the purpose of those rights is to make the creators money and to prevent other people from infringing on their copyright. This is not, and has never been, the purpose behind copyright law, although it is being widely used for it now.

    So from your point of view, this change would weaken copyright law by removing the "right" of preventing infringement and loss of control. From my point of view this change strengthens copyright law by promoting the exchange of ideas, reducing economic waste by those who are not creators (the distribution companies), and by increasing the value of copyrighted works.

    To illustrate my point, I will utilize a bit of fair use:
    "So what I told you was true, from a certain point of view."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  128.  
    identicon
    Karrl, May 21st, 2013 @ 8:30pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Currently, copyright holders have a legally enforceable claim against those that circumvent access controls.

    No, they don't. The only rights granted to copyright holders are in 17 USC 106. 17 USC 501 does not say it's infringement. This bill would not limit this in any way.

    Whatever claims are held are the government's. This is criminal law.

    Furthermore, weakening the rights held by copyright holders does not necessarily weaken copyright itself. Granting owners those rights is not the primary purpose of copyright.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  129.  
    identicon
    Karrl, May 21st, 2013 @ 8:31pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Currently, copyright holders have a legally enforceable claim against those that circumvent access controls.

    No, they don't. The only rights granted to copyright holders are in 17 USC 106. 17 USC 501 does not say it's infringement. This bill would not limit this in any way.

    Whatever claims are held are the Ugovernment's. This is criminal law.

    Furthermore, weakening the rights held by copyright holders does not necessarily weaken copyright itself. Granting owners those rights is not the primary purpose of copyright.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  130.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 8:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Yeah, that was me. I'm on a phone.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  131.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2013 @ 9:32pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    As usual, AJ, you have no point. When you realize this, all will be clear.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  132.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 21st, 2013 @ 9:34pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'm curious, AJ. What makes you think you deserve a response, from anyone? Be specific, please. I need more comedy today.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  133.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 11:18pm

    Re:

    And, yet again, AJ shows why responding to him is a waste of time. He made a statement that was clearly false, and I pointed it out. Rather than admit his error, he continued the attack and moved the goalposts. Then he thinks it makes sense to yell at me because I won't respond to his ridiculous assertions?

    This is why there is no discussing anything with you on the merits. You employ logical fallacies like you invented them, and you constantly move the goalposts.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  134.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), May 21st, 2013 @ 11:59pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Whatever claims are held are the government's. This is criminal law.

    Actually, I was wrong. It is also civil law. 17 USC 1203 allows civil actions against people who violate 1201.

    Still, that does not mean that any of the rights granted in 106 were violated. These are the only things that are considered an infringement of copyright, as 501 makes clear. (In fact, 1203 doesn't talk about copyright holders, but "any person injured by a violation of section 1201.")

    Considering 1201(c) ("Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title"), I think it's fair to say that Congress did not intend to grant copyright holders any more rights that they already had. They were never seeking to add another right to 106.

    It's pretty clear that the Congressional intent was to prohibit circumvention specifically for the purpose of infringement. Making this intent clear, by explicitly stating it in the statutes, would not in any way diminish the rights granted in 106, and would simply clarify Congress' intent in enacting the statutes in the first place.

    There is no sane reason to be against this bill at all.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  135.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 22nd, 2013 @ 1:11am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    They have a claim, but it is not a copyright claim. DMCA is related to, but is not, copyright.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  136.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 22nd, 2013 @ 2:19am

    Yes.

    It's a pretty simple question: do you actually own the products you buy?

    yes, but that does not mean you are able to use what you own how you like.

    You can own many things and still have restrictions on it's use, you can own a car, but it's illegal to speed on public roads, you can own a knife but you cannot kill someone with it, or use it to conduct a crime.

    You (in America) can own a gun, but you cannot just take it where you like or discharge it when you like, (or kill someone with it).

    So Masnick, it's quite simple yes, you can own many things, you can even own copies of works and not own the copyright!!.

    This is pretty basic stuff mansick, why do you have so much trouble understanding it ?????????

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  137.  
    icon
    silverscarcat (profile), May 22nd, 2013 @ 2:53am

    Re: Yes.

    Hey, AJ, I thought you left.

    Anyway, you're missing the point (big surprise) again (shocker, I know)

    Those examples that you listed with the car, knife and gun...

    Speeding puts people's lives in danger. Knifing someone takes away a person's life. Shooting a gun can kill or injure people, which interferes with their rights to live.

    Now then...

    How does unlocking my electronics take away a person's rights like those do?

    All unlocking does is, instead of taking away rights, GIVES people the right to use their stuff as they see fit so long as what they're doing doesn't interfere with another person's rights.

    Throwing bricks, stabbing someone, speeding, shooting, all of those endanger human lives.

    Unlocking a phone or video game system doesn't hurt ANYBODY!!!

    You seem to fail to grasp this basic concept, AJ.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  138.  
    identicon
    Anonymous, May 22nd, 2013 @ 3:50am

    Re: Re:

    F*** the police.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  139.  
    icon
    RT Cunningham (profile), May 22nd, 2013 @ 4:39am

    Please...make. it. stop.

    I just read every comment on this article and 90 percent (or more) of it was either Average Joe's inexcusable stupidity or people responding to his inexcusable stupidity.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  140.  
    icon
    Some Other AC (profile), May 22nd, 2013 @ 5:02am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    By "rooting" your phone you are either unlocking the bootloader, or bypassing the bootloader(think Motorola and most Verizon Wireless 'Droid phones). Either way, from research and playing that i have done with my Android devices, you can do all kinds of things the carriers/manufacturers don't want or intend for you to.
    Also, a number of ROMs for android provide support for different base bands, most of the time they are carrier specific, but with knowledge and patience, you could conceivably allow a Sprint branded device access to Verizon Wireless' network.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  141.  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), May 22nd, 2013 @ 5:53am

    Hollywood screener DVDs

    Wasn't there a TechDirt article not long ago that described how Hollywood trains its own people how to circumvent the DRM on DVD screeners in violation of the DMCA?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  142.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 22nd, 2013 @ 7:10am

    Re: Re: Yes.

    That's not AJ. That's darryl, who speaks with much less grammar, spelling, paragraphs or logic.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  143.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), May 22nd, 2013 @ 7:58am

    Re: Re:

    And, yet again, AJ shows why responding to him is a waste of time. He made a statement that was clearly false, and I pointed it out. Rather than admit his error, he continued the attack and moved the goalposts. Then he thinks it makes sense to yell at me because I won't respond to his ridiculous assertions?

    This is why there is no discussing anything with you on the merits. You employ logical fallacies like you invented them, and you constantly move the goalposts.


    I didn't move the goalposts. You said "copyrights," and I assumed you meant the rights granted to copyright holders under the Copyright Act--which is a reasonable interpretation of the word. You appear to be limiting your claim to some subset of those rights. That's fine. The word "copyrights" can be construed differently, and my construction differed from yours. No big deal. But you still have not answered my question: What do you mean by "copyrights." You're pretending like it's my fault I don't know what you mean when you haven't bothered to explain what you mean by your use of the word.

    Regardless, I've asked you to address my point this proposal would indeed weaken the copyright rights, defined broadly as including the anticircumvention rights under 1201, of copyright holders. You have not addressed this question. Nor have you addressed the point I've made repeatedly in the comments that if you meant by "copyrights" only the exclusive rights under Section 106, then this proposal would weaken those rights as well because making it legal to traffic in technologies that can be used to circumvent access controls would make it easier to infringe. Those controls exist for the purpose of protecting the rights under Section 106. If those controls are weakened, then that in turn weakens the protection of the Section 106 rights. The fact that it would still be illegal to violate the 106 rights ignores the fact that it would be easier to do so.

    Now, instead of pulling out your usual trope about "temper tantrums" and "moving the goalposts," why don't you actually discuss these actual issues on the merits? Seriously, Mike. Grow a fucking pair and discuss something like a man. Stop running away all the time. It's fucking ridiculous.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  144.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), May 22nd, 2013 @ 9:14am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    > But if you're asking why the DMCA was enacted
    > to begin with,

    No, I'm asking *you* why *you* believe a phone service provider should have a legal cause of action against me merely for making full use of my own property.

    If doing so violates my contract with them, then they have remedies under contract law. They don't need the DMCA. Why does there need to be this additional draconian statute with criminal penalties out there that really does nothing but prevent people from doing legal things with their own property. The underlying actions are legal but this idiotic law makes the mere act of exercising one's rights a crime.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  145.  
    identicon
    Shmerl, May 22nd, 2013 @ 9:15am

    Re: Re: Re:

    this proposal would indeed weaken the copyright rights, defined broadly as including the anticircumvention rights under 1201, of copyright holders. ... exclusive rights under Section 106 ... this proposal would weaken those rights as well because making it legal to traffic in technologies that can be used to circumvent access controls would make it easier to infringe...

    This is a load of bunk, and you know it. Breaking DRM doesn't imply infringement since DRM circumvention tools can be used for legitimate purpose (i.e. accessing the legally purchased content). Therefore prohibiting distributing and using them altogether is like prohibiting selling and using knives, since they can be used for crime as well as for legal purposes. This, paired with the fact that DRM itself doesn't protect copyrights (as we discussed above) and thus weakening DRM doesn't affect infringement makes it completely reasonable to repeal DMCA 1201.

    In general, it's a moronic idea to use legal methods (DMCA) to prevent a deficient technology (DRM) from being broken, since it that can't protect what it's intended to protect.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  146.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 22nd, 2013 @ 10:17am

    Re: Re: Re:

    AJ, your "merits" have been torn to shreds already. Grow a BRAIN.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  147.  
    icon
    Ferel (profile), May 22nd, 2013 @ 10:25am

    Re: Yes.

    On what fucking planet is rooting a phone equal to murder?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  148.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), May 22nd, 2013 @ 12:58pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    AJ, your "merits" have been torn to shreds already.

    Hardly. I'm asking Mike to admit that this would weaken some of the rights that copyright holders have as far as anticircumvention is concerned. He can't even admit that much. Just like he can't admit that there is an allegation of specific criminal infringement against the Dotcom Crew or that Swartz may have violated the CFAA. For some reason (ahem... fundamental, cellular-level dishonesty) he can't ever concede simple points that cut against his rhetoric.

    As far as the 106 rights go, all I've heard are conclusory statements that DRM does absolutely nothing to prevent piracy. If Mike is basing his assessment that this proposal doesn't weaken 106 rights because DRM is ineffective, he should admit that. But he won't discuss it because he knows he can't prove that DRM has no effect. It's just part of the TD mantra that disincentives are completely ineffective when it's copyright. It's total bullshit, as per usual, and Mike has run away rather than discuss anything on the merits. What a fake.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  149.  
    icon
    average_joe (profile), May 22nd, 2013 @ 1:00pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    No, I'm asking *you* why *you* believe a phone service provider should have a legal cause of action against me merely for making full use of my own property.

    Are you referring to unlocking or jailbreaking?

    If doing so violates my contract with them, then they have remedies under contract law. They don't need the DMCA.

    Going after each customer in breach of contract is far more difficult than shutting down the parties that supply the tools that make it all too simple for their customers to breach.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  150.  
    icon
    Karl (profile), May 23rd, 2013 @ 12:59am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I'm asking Mike to admit that this would weaken some of the rights that copyright holders have as far as anticircumvention is concerned.

    So, Joe, can you point to anywhere in the copyright statutes that says that copyright holders have a right to control all access to the works that they authored?

    No, you can't, because that was never a right that was granted to them.

    And, clearly, Congress did not intend to grant copyright holders those rights. That's why they explicitly included a "savings clause" in 1201(c): "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title."

    This bill would merely clarify that intent - nothing more.

    Furthermore, as it stands, this statute applies to much more than copyrighted material. Let's take the classic example: "jailbreaking" your phone so that you are able to switch to a different carrier. If you did this, what access to copyrighted works are you gaining?

    The answer: none. "Jailbreaking" your phone does not result in access to any material whatsoever that is within the scope of copyright, as defined in 17 USC 102.

    In other words: the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions grant rights to people who have no copyright interests whatsoever.

    This is a major flaw in the law as it stands. You said, and I agree, that the intent is to allow copyright holders to protect themselves against infringement. But it is overreaching as it stands, and this bill would simply rectify the situation.

    As far as the 106 rights go, all I've heard are conclusory statements that DRM does absolutely nothing to prevent piracy.

    That's not really the issue. Anti-circumvention measures (not merely DRM) may help prevent piracy - but, of course, shutting down public libraries would also help prevent piracy. The plain fact is that anti-circumvention provisions do not serve the public welfare. Anti-circumvention measures may help prevent activity that is infringing, but they also bypass all of the limitations on copyright rights that are Constitutionally necessary.

    Plus, as I said, anti-circumvention measures are unlawful even regarding material that is not covered by copyright law.

    Also, replying to another comment:

    making it legal to traffic in technologies that can be used to circumvent access controls would make it easier to infringe.

    This is aboslutely false. How easy it is to infringe depends entirely upon how easy it is to actually circumvent the particular access controls. Whether that is legal or illegal makes little difference. I mean, for fuck's sake, people print DeCSS on T-shirts. It can't get more easy than that.

    What it would do is make it easier to "traffic in technologies" that don't infringe. But nothing in this bill would make it any more difficult for copyright holders to enforce their rights. It would simply legalize activities that never infringed on their rights in the first place. If someone makes something that can bypass copy protection for the purposes of infringement, they can still get sued, and they can still face criminal charges. And it is not any harder for either copyright holder or the govenrnment to bring these charges against them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  151.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), May 24th, 2013 @ 12:17pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    > Going after each customer in breach of
    > contract is far more difficult than shutting
    > down the parties that supply the tools that
    > make it all too simple for their customers to
    > breach.

    Ah, so you apparently believe making things easy for big companies at the expense of citizens' property rights is the proper purpose of the criminal justice system.

    Gotcha.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This