3 ms·
You linked to a 234 page report that does not contain the phrases "copy protection" or "DRM" or "digital rights management." You did an amazing job making my po
by tacos 10y ago
You linked to a 234 page report that does not contain the phrases "copy protection" or "DRM" or "digital rights management." You did an amazing job making my point for me.
The report somewhat misleadingly names anything they cannot digitize as "orphan works." These millions of items are largely books and photographs for which they lack a formal license -- it's a discussion relating to the Google book scanning lawsuit and Fair Use not DRM.
- icebraining 10y agoI suppose I wasn't clear in my post. My point is essentially: 1. There's an issue of orphans works, as the report shows. 2. DRM makes it worse, by making it illegal to bypass the copy protection, which is necessary in order to preserve the work until its legal status can be resolved (even if it's just waiting for copyright to expire). CDs/DVDs and other physical media in which copyright works are distributed have limited lifetimes, and many won't last the many decades it takes for their content to enter the public domain (it's now lifetime of author + 70 years!). If archival copies are legally prevented by the necessity of having to break DRM, you're essentially ensuring that those works will be lost.
- tacos 10y agoNot illegal at all. The DMCA expressly allows the Librarian of Congress to override this stuff, for exactly the reasons you raise. https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/10/28/2015-27212/exemption-to-prohibition-on-circumvention-of-copyright-protection-systems-for-access-control https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/10/28/2015-272...