7 ms·

The link is to a reasonably thought out and worded perspective from that of a technology industry participant. As noted within, there are some guiding principle

The link is to a reasonably thought out and worded perspective from that of a technology industry participant. As noted within, there are some guiding principles which establish the basis for perspective and action. As in, the Free Software Foundation wouldn't be interested in participating in the for-profit software market. For a counter-point, when this case first broke and I was able to study the implications from a creator and "IP holder" perspective, I wrote the following essay: https://medium.com/@6StringMerc/arguments-against-the-dmca-section-1201-lawsuit-by-the-eff-b8d760de3fdf#.f5l4oo6an https://medium.com/@6StringMerc/arguments-against-the-dmca-s... I will genuinely engage with anyone who would like to take some assertions or postulations of mine and challenge them for the sake of discussion. These are important topics!

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
> As in, the Free Software Foundation wouldn't be interested in participating in the for-profit software market. You are mistaken. The FSF does not object to making a profit with software. In fact, they have been selling software themselves. It's about free as in freedom, not about free as in beer.
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  Arguably destroying the DRM protections will have ripple effects on the for-profit software market. Do you contend otherwise?
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
    Pretty much every change in law has some ripple effects on some for-profit market. Saying that therefore, an organization pushing for that change is somehow against making a profit in that market is just straw-manning it.
    - 6stringmerc 10y ago
      Okay, I can follow how you interpret my statement. I'd like to clarify that what I was reaching for - and maybe missed - is establishing a "motive." As in, what is the "motive" to change the law? Is it completely altruistic? Is it capitalistic? I'd like to think you'll grant me that the article is very one-sided, in that there's not a single mention of the arts industry's concerns with why they would fight so hard (almost psychotically hard) to establish and maintain the existence of DRM. Thus it felt, to me, extremely one-sided and, perhaps unwisely, I questioned the motive for such a framing.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
        > As in, what is the "motive" to change the law? Is it completely altruistic? Is it capitalistic? Well, the motive probably varies person by person, but in any case probably can't really be reasonably summarized in a single word. > I'd like to think you'll grant me that the article is very one-sided, in that there's not a single mention of the arts industry's concerns with why they would fight so hard (almost psychotically hard) to establish and maintain the existence of DRM. Why should it not be one-sided? It's not like they are or pretend to be a neutral reporter. People from the "art industry" haven't exactly been known for presenting the EFF's and FSF's (and many others') arguments against DRM, and in particular against laws criminalizing the bypassing of DRM, have they? > Thus it felt, to me, extremely one-sided and, perhaps unwisely, I questioned the motive for such a framing. Well, nothing wrong with questioning it, I guess. I just don't see how you could then end up with the conclusion that it has something to do with the FSF disliking profit (or something to that effect), which is evidently not true. Also, one very good reason for framing things a certain way is to challenge the prevailing framing. It's not exactly like the framing that's been established by the "art industry" is somehow neutral, after all.
        6stringmerc 10y ago
        No, I understand, and I am no RIAA or Irving Azoff apologist. I want both sides to at least reconcile - in public - that they are at odds with one another and playing extensive PR games. I mean, I don't think we as a society, as voters, can make effective thoughts regarding compromise when simply being fired propaganda into opposite ears. Or, to put it more bluntly, just because these entities can talk past one another doesn't mean they should do so. If they both act in this manner, should I just go ahead and give them both a pass? The first "side," I think, to "rise above" the cherry-picking statistics and hyperbolic "negatives" will draw more support and eventually have the upper hand in negotiation. Not overnight. But cases like this try to sledgehammer something - to enact drastic change overnight - and in my opinion, that's not a prudent course of action with respect to most functions of Federal Law.
in_the_sticks 10y ago
That essay could start off better. Assigning your side blue and the opposing side red and then immediately showing that red==bad, blue==good feels kind of hostile to opposing views.
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  That was not my intention though I understand the impression it might make. I was going for higher contrast. I suppose even using "green" for one could be interpreted as a form of insinuating greed? It was a sketch of an idea to conceptualize, as I'm genuinely between both parties with respect to merits and criticisms. Which, I do acknowledge, is not necessarily a welcome perspective in this particular site.
pdkl95 10y ago
> Copyright Abolitionists Only a small subset of people against DRM and the problems in the DMCA are against copyright. Also, as zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC already pointed out, the FSF is fine[1] with for-profit software. This confusion often derives from an assumption that you have to deny distribution rights to your customers to sell them anything. That isn't always true. > study the implications What you seem to be missing (in general) is about the EFF's fight against Section 1201 is that this isn't about copyright. The EFF is fighting the ban on bypassing "technological measure[s] that effectively controls access to a work"[2]. This ban makes some types of security research illegal, because the law treats security researchers announcing a DRM bug the same as someone exploiting the same bug to copy a movie. Right now you are probably using a browser that contains a 3rd part black box CDM ("Content Decryption Module"). Every day you use that browser you're betting that nobody has found an exploitable bug in that black box. Bugs are particularly dangerous when they are hidden in a black box; it's easy to ignore bugs that nobody can see. This concern isn't hypothetical: a bug in Chrome's Widevine CDM was discovered recently[3]. [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html [2] 17 U.S.C Sec. 1201(a)(1) [3] http://boingboing.net/2016/06/24/googles-version-of-the-w3c.html http://boingboing.net/2016/06/24/googles-version-of-the-w3c....
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  Using your reasoning, only a small subset of people are genuinely affected by the Section 1201 implications - security researchers in particular. Again, you also in some ways prove my point by mentioning that DRM work-arounds are nearly a daily occurrence in certain arenas. My essay argues - vehemently - that academic exemption that passes the Four Factor Fair Use test absolutely deserves to be codified into the Section 1201 going forward. This is not hard to understand. What you are missing, which is extremely important, is that Copyright is a synthetic construct and therefore absolutely useless without any protectionist mechanism. AKA "the right to make copies" - DRM is just that - a mechanism to protect the right of the originator to, under Copyright law, retain power over the "Intellectual Property." I believe it's counter-productive, or maybe even logically dishonest, to claim that destroying DRM isn't extremely intertwined with Copyright as we know it.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
By the way, something to think about regarding your suggested solution to the "John Deere problem": John Deere will simply start selling smart tractors. You know, a large machine with a strong motor and everything. And with a computer controlling it. But without any software. Or with only very basic software. You cannot actually do anything useful with it unless you install some tractor apps. Which you can licence. From John Deere. So, what have you gained? Or do you have any workaround for this that does not entail abolishing DRM?
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  The workaround is to buy a Kubota or a Lamborghini or another equally suitable brand without the knee capping. Is this not a reasonable market-forces-problem-solving perspective? Also, just to belabor the point, once a person purchases the John Deere under First Sale Doctrine they are completely entitled to replacing the computer with a third-party controller. Thus, that's Fair Use of the vehicle one purchased. Legally, in this context, John Deere can not claim that DRM was circumvented because the rights were terminated upon sale of the physical item.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
    > The workaround is to buy a Kubota or a Lamborghini or another equally suitable brand without the knee capping. Is this not a reasonable market-forces-problem-solving perspective? Why is it a problem at all then? Doesn't this option to buy a different product exist currently? > Also, just to belabor the point, once a person purchases the John Deere under First Sale Doctrine they are completely entitled to replacing the computer with a third-party controller. Thus, that's Fair Use of the vehicle one purchased. Legally, in this context, John Deere can not claim that DRM was circumvented because the rights were terminated upon sale of the physical item. Well, there is actually a huge pile of problems buried here. Namely, the pile of problems that proponents of DRM tend to not understand. Or to not even be aware of. Are you saying that only replacing the computer would be allowed? Is it crucial that the computer is swapped out? Or is the computer also part of the machine that you own, so you should also be allowed to modify the computer itself however you like? I'd like to understand where you think the line should be drawn between what pieces of the physical thing that you buy that you are allowed to modify as you like, and which pieces are off limits, if any? Also, it would be helpful if you could give some short indication of what you know about the inner workings of computers and software, so I don't end up explaining stuff to you way above or way below your level. Do you know some assembly? Digital circuitry basics? Theoretical computer science/halting problem? Complexity theory basics? Cryptography?

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago

> As in, the Free Software Foundation wouldn't be interested in participating in the for-profit software market. You are mistaken. The FSF does not object to making a profit with software. In fact, they have been selling software themselves. It's about free as in freedom, not about free as in beer.

6stringmerc 10y ago
Arguably destroying the DRM protections will have ripple effects on the for-profit software market. Do you contend otherwise?
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
  Pretty much every change in law has some ripple effects on some for-profit market. Saying that therefore, an organization pushing for that change is somehow against making a profit in that market is just straw-manning it.
  - 6stringmerc 10y ago
    Okay, I can follow how you interpret my statement. I'd like to clarify that what I was reaching for - and maybe missed - is establishing a "motive." As in, what is the "motive" to change the law? Is it completely altruistic? Is it capitalistic? I'd like to think you'll grant me that the article is very one-sided, in that there's not a single mention of the arts industry's concerns with why they would fight so hard (almost psychotically hard) to establish and maintain the existence of DRM. Thus it felt, to me, extremely one-sided and, perhaps unwisely, I questioned the motive for such a framing.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
      > As in, what is the "motive" to change the law? Is it completely altruistic? Is it capitalistic? Well, the motive probably varies person by person, but in any case probably can't really be reasonably summarized in a single word. > I'd like to think you'll grant me that the article is very one-sided, in that there's not a single mention of the arts industry's concerns with why they would fight so hard (almost psychotically hard) to establish and maintain the existence of DRM. Why should it not be one-sided? It's not like they are or pretend to be a neutral reporter. People from the "art industry" haven't exactly been known for presenting the EFF's and FSF's (and many others') arguments against DRM, and in particular against laws criminalizing the bypassing of DRM, have they? > Thus it felt, to me, extremely one-sided and, perhaps unwisely, I questioned the motive for such a framing. Well, nothing wrong with questioning it, I guess. I just don't see how you could then end up with the conclusion that it has something to do with the FSF disliking profit (or something to that effect), which is evidently not true. Also, one very good reason for framing things a certain way is to challenge the prevailing framing. It's not exactly like the framing that's been established by the "art industry" is somehow neutral, after all.
      - 6stringmerc 10y ago
        No, I understand, and I am no RIAA or Irving Azoff apologist. I want both sides to at least reconcile - in public - that they are at odds with one another and playing extensive PR games. I mean, I don't think we as a society, as voters, can make effective thoughts regarding compromise when simply being fired propaganda into opposite ears. Or, to put it more bluntly, just because these entities can talk past one another doesn't mean they should do so. If they both act in this manner, should I just go ahead and give them both a pass? The first "side," I think, to "rise above" the cherry-picking statistics and hyperbolic "negatives" will draw more support and eventually have the upper hand in negotiation. Not overnight. But cases like this try to sledgehammer something - to enact drastic change overnight - and in my opinion, that's not a prudent course of action with respect to most functions of Federal Law.

in_the_sticks 10y ago

That essay could start off better. Assigning your side blue and the opposing side red and then immediately showing that red==bad, blue==good feels kind of hostile to opposing views.

6stringmerc 10y ago
That was not my intention though I understand the impression it might make. I was going for higher contrast. I suppose even using "green" for one could be interpreted as a form of insinuating greed? It was a sketch of an idea to conceptualize, as I'm genuinely between both parties with respect to merits and criticisms. Which, I do acknowledge, is not necessarily a welcome perspective in this particular site.

pdkl95 10y ago

> Copyright Abolitionists Only a small subset of people against DRM and the problems in the DMCA are against copyright. Also, as zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC already pointed out, the FSF is fine[1] with for-profit software. This confusion often derives from an assumption that you have to deny distribution rights to your customers to sell them anything. That isn't always true. > study the implications What you seem to be missing (in general) is about the EFF's fight against Section 1201 is that this isn't about copyright. The EFF is fighting the ban on bypassing "technological measure[s] that effectively controls access to a work"[2]. This ban makes some types of security research illegal, because the law treats security researchers announcing a DRM bug the same as someone exploiting the same bug to copy a movie. Right now you are probably using a browser that contains a 3rd part black box CDM ("Content Decryption Module"). Every day you use that browser you're betting that nobody has found an exploitable bug in that black box. Bugs are particularly dangerous when they are hidden in a black box; it's easy to ignore bugs that nobody can see. This concern isn't hypothetical: a bug in Chrome's Widevine CDM was discovered recently[3]. [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html [2] 17 U.S.C Sec. 1201(a)(1) [3] http://boingboing.net/2016/06/24/googles-version-of-the-w3c.html http://boingboing.net/2016/06/24/googles-version-of-the-w3c....

6stringmerc 10y ago
Using your reasoning, only a small subset of people are genuinely affected by the Section 1201 implications - security researchers in particular. Again, you also in some ways prove my point by mentioning that DRM work-arounds are nearly a daily occurrence in certain arenas. My essay argues - vehemently - that academic exemption that passes the Four Factor Fair Use test absolutely deserves to be codified into the Section 1201 going forward. This is not hard to understand. What you are missing, which is extremely important, is that Copyright is a synthetic construct and therefore absolutely useless without any protectionist mechanism. AKA "the right to make copies" - DRM is just that - a mechanism to protect the right of the originator to, under Copyright law, retain power over the "Intellectual Property." I believe it's counter-productive, or maybe even logically dishonest, to claim that destroying DRM isn't extremely intertwined with Copyright as we know it.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago

By the way, something to think about regarding your suggested solution to the "John Deere problem": John Deere will simply start selling smart tractors. You know, a large machine with a strong motor and everything. And with a computer controlling it. But without any software. Or with only very basic software. You cannot actually do anything useful with it unless you install some tractor apps. Which you can licence. From John Deere. So, what have you gained? Or do you have any workaround for this that does not entail abolishing DRM?

6stringmerc 10y ago
The workaround is to buy a Kubota or a Lamborghini or another equally suitable brand without the knee capping. Is this not a reasonable market-forces-problem-solving perspective? Also, just to belabor the point, once a person purchases the John Deere under First Sale Doctrine they are completely entitled to replacing the computer with a third-party controller. Thus, that's Fair Use of the vehicle one purchased. Legally, in this context, John Deere can not claim that DRM was circumvented because the rights were terminated upon sale of the physical item.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
  > The workaround is to buy a Kubota or a Lamborghini or another equally suitable brand without the knee capping. Is this not a reasonable market-forces-problem-solving perspective? Why is it a problem at all then? Doesn't this option to buy a different product exist currently? > Also, just to belabor the point, once a person purchases the John Deere under First Sale Doctrine they are completely entitled to replacing the computer with a third-party controller. Thus, that's Fair Use of the vehicle one purchased. Legally, in this context, John Deere can not claim that DRM was circumvented because the rights were terminated upon sale of the physical item. Well, there is actually a huge pile of problems buried here. Namely, the pile of problems that proponents of DRM tend to not understand. Or to not even be aware of. Are you saying that only replacing the computer would be allowed? Is it crucial that the computer is swapped out? Or is the computer also part of the machine that you own, so you should also be allowed to modify the computer itself however you like? I'd like to understand where you think the line should be drawn between what pieces of the physical thing that you buy that you are allowed to modify as you like, and which pieces are off limits, if any? Also, it would be helpful if you could give some short indication of what you know about the inner workings of computers and software, so I don't end up explaining stuff to you way above or way below your level. Do you know some assembly? Digital circuitry basics? Theoretical computer science/halting problem? Complexity theory basics? Cryptography?