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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.