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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks. These threads always turn into a referendum on me personally rather than "the faithful" acknowledging that I have a point about Mike, but I appreciate the support. I'm sure Mike would have something interesting to say about the proposal if he actually bothered to read it.
And I'll just add the irony that Mike whines about not having access to such proposals in other situations, but here where he actually has access he doesn't even bother to make use of it. Instead we just get conclusory statements about what the proposals say rather than an actual textual analysis. Pretty funny.
These particular proposals are available publicly, so I don't really get the question. Are you talking about other proposals? If so, then no, I don't have the default position that all drafts should be made public. I don't know much about diplomacy, but it seems self-evident to me that not every international agreement is or should be crowd-sourced in the way that some of you think it should be. I don't think that's practical. But as a general matter, I think transparency is good. I'd need a more specific situation to give you a more specific answer. These particular proposals are quite open to the public, so it's strange that you guys aren't acknowledging the positives of that.