5 ms·

> We proposed a kind of DRM non-aggression pact, through which W3C members would promise that they'd only sue people under laws like DMCA 1201 if there was some

> We proposed a kind of DRM non-aggression pact, through which W3C members would promise that they'd only sue people under laws like DMCA 1201 if there was some other law that had been broken. So if someone violates your copyright, or incites someone to violate your copyright, or interferes with your contracts with your users, or misappropriates your trade secrets, or counterfeits your trademarks, or does anything else that violates your legal rights, you can throw the book at them. With that system, what would stop someone from selling software that can be used to infringe copyright. As long as they don't do so themselves or "incite" anyone else to do so (perhaps promoting a legitimate use like pre-buffering), could they be sued?

chrisweekly 9y ago
> “software that can be used to infringe copyright” aka “software”
virgilp 9y ago
The horror! I hear some people also sell hardware that can be used to infringe copyright (perhaps promoting a legitimate use like general-purpose-computing). They should be sued out of existence.
corydoctorow 9y ago
We addressed that: both jurisprudence (Grokster) and global copyright laws establish a doctrine of "secondary liability" for incitement to copyright infringement. This right would be enforceable against technology firms if they produced such a technology. The fact that DRM advocates still wouldn't promise not to sue when no law was broken confirms that they weren't interested in DRM's power to curtail illegal activity. (Secondarily, the companies that advocated for DRM never questioned how someone operating under the non-aggression pact would be able to break the DRM; they tacitly acknowledged that this would be trivial -- so whether or not you're worried about secondary infringers like the ones you describe, they would exist, because things that are technologically trivial are impossible to stop, even if they're illegal -- all that EME would do is give these companies the power to stop people who WEREN'T using such tools for infringement and thus wanted to operate in the open; it would have no effect on people who WERE infringing and operating anonymously and in the shadows)
- leereeves 9y ago
  I'm thinking (just as an example) of pre-buffering software that temporarily stores the files unencrypted. Perhaps simply because they hadn't thought about the implications for copyright infringement. Would that still be incitement?

chrisweekly 9y ago

> “software that can be used to infringe copyright” aka “software”

virgilp 9y ago

The horror! I hear some people also sell hardware that can be used to infringe copyright (perhaps promoting a legitimate use like general-purpose-computing). They should be sued out of existence.

corydoctorow 9y ago

We addressed that: both jurisprudence (Grokster) and global copyright laws establish a doctrine of "secondary liability" for incitement to copyright infringement. This right would be enforceable against technology firms if they produced such a technology. The fact that DRM advocates still wouldn't promise not to sue when no law was broken confirms that they weren't interested in DRM's power to curtail illegal activity. (Secondarily, the companies that advocated for DRM never questioned how someone operating under the non-aggression pact would be able to break the DRM; they tacitly acknowledged that this would be trivial -- so whether or not you're worried about secondary infringers like the ones you describe, they would exist, because things that are technologically trivial are impossible to stop, even if they're illegal -- all that EME would do is give these companies the power to stop people who WEREN'T using such tools for infringement and thus wanted to operate in the open; it would have no effect on people who WERE infringing and operating anonymously and in the shadows)

leereeves 9y ago
I'm thinking (just as an example) of pre-buffering software that temporarily stores the files unencrypted. Perhaps simply because they hadn't thought about the implications for copyright infringement. Would that still be incitement?