4 ms·
Looks to me like we're slowly making "interference with a business model" either a crime or a civil tort. Consider: * The slow progress of patents from protec
by drewcrawford 17y ago
Looks to me like we're slowly making "interference with a business model" either a crime or a civil tort. Consider:
* The slow progress of patents from protector of innovation to anticompetitive weapon
* The music industry's legal wins, i.e. "contributory copyright infringement" in some jurisdictions
* DMCA, which in large part criminalizes the breaking of an EULA
* US v. Lori Drew, where we actually convicted a person of a computer trespass felony for breaking an EULA
* Psystar case, where the ruling was based on the DMCA and a legal fiction of how software works, instead of how it actually works
The thing about all of these legal constructs is, the bits don't care.
I'm not saying piracy or whatever is morally right or anything. But I am saying, as a practical matter, it is impossible to regulate this sort of thing, whether it's made illegal or no. The practice of making it illegal will not (much) reduce what actually happens. The business models are still dead, even if the competition is the black market.
- epochwolf 17y agoWasn't PyStar nailed for producing and distributing a modified copy of OSX? (Which would fall under general copyright. PyStar didn't have the rights to OSX to make modifications to it's boot-loader)
- drewcrawford 17y agoIf modifying OSX == installing software, then yes. There's a well-written FOSS bootloader for OSX, Psystar just forked it and preinstalled it. It's not like they patched the bytes on the disk (but even if they had, that's really a right you should have, having bought the software).
- swolchok 17y agoNo, we have made something to the effect of "interference with any digital protection scheme that can be construed as controlling access to a copyrighted work" a crime or a tort, and we did it 11 years ago.