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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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?
Easy. No one should ever have to pay money to find out what laws/rules/edicts they have to obey. Given that, you can either remove the copyright from the standard or grant a free-to-publish license to that standard. Done (unless you feel that charging for access to laws is valid).
They didn't say anything about what emulators in general were created for. They said emulators created for the purpose of playing illegally copied Nintendo software is blah blah blah. They don't say anything about emulators in general, nor do they say anything about emulators created to play non Nintendo software, and nor do they say anything about emulators created to emulate Nintendo hardware for the purpose of running custom software that runs on Nintendo hardware. Also of note: they aren't saying anything about emulators created to play legally copied Nintendo software.
I'm not sure I follow what you are saying. I'd prefer copyright law to be scrapped. None of these people will offer reasons for why it ought to be scrapped. They all have jobs that rely on copyright existing in some form or another. While some of their arguments might include why people are angry, none of their arguments will actually look at the whole of the system.
If you aren't willing to look at reasons for scrapping the whole copyright system, then you really aren't looking at the right thing. You have to look at all of the data and question the reason for it's existence to begin with. I fully concede that others may come to different conclusions than me. I'm just saying that if they aren't even willing to look at the core, then anything else is just window dressing to keep their jobs while placating the populace.
Where's the representation of people who will actually consider all possibilities? I don't see anyone on that list who would argue that the whole concept ought to be scrapped. Instead, I see a bunch of people who will make arguments for why their job needs to stay. Changed? Sure, but none of them will be willing to accept that maybe it's not necessary anymore (if it ever was).
Yes, but if you know that what you have done is illegal, and that it's being referred to the authorities, then why don't they just leave. They're not on bail. That I know of, nothing is stopping them from taking a vacation to France and once there asking for asylum a la Roman Polanski.
I've never done this (nor felt the need to) so I don't know how hard it would actually be.
While I enjoy watching these guys get put to the fire, I can't help but wonder why they haven't left the country. There are several decent countries that probably wouldn't extradite them for the things they could be charged with. Either they are really stupid, or extremely confident that they will be exonerated. It's not likely they're going to be getting a lot of business as lawyers after this anyway, so having to learn a new skill set in a different country isn't much different than staying here.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Bit Upset With Netflix Here
It's not DRM if the customer can decrypt at will (besides playing the content through the approved player). If the consumer knows, or even can know, one of the keys, then it's not DRM. The only way I know of to hide the key from the consumer without hiding it from the player is to obfuscate the key. Open source prevents that. Partly because you can read the code, and partly you can also compile your own version that just prints out the key.
I don't think it's a matter of simplicity, but rather feasibility. Stack overflow seems to be in agreement. Open source DRM is probably not possible.
I don't think it's possible (though I admit this is not my area of expertise). Public/Private works by someone using your public key to encrypt something that only you can decrypt with your private key. In the case of DRM, the content owners would use their private key to encrypt so other's could use their public key to decrypt. But if the key is public, then the DRM is effectively dead.
They could try encrypting the content with their customer's public keys, so the customers can then decrypt it with their private keys, but then you have to re-encrypt the content for every purchaser, and you still haven't solved the main problem: the consumer can decrypt the content at will.
The problem with DRM is that it tries to hide those keys from the same people being shown the content. It has to do this so that they can't get the keys to decrypt the content at will. So far, that's been done by having closed-source, proprietary and obfuscated solutions. With an open source solution, it would be trivial to find where the keys are hidden by reading the source code, or even easier, compile your own version that just prints the key out. Once you have the keys, you decrypt the content once, and now it's decrypted for always.