3 ms·
"But if someone goes around your DRM and doesn't violate any other laws, the non-aggression pact means that you couldn't use the W3C standardised DRM as a route
by esigs 9y ago
"But if someone goes around your DRM and doesn't violate any other laws, the non-aggression pact means that you couldn't use the W3C standardised DRM as a route to legally shut them down. That would protect security researchers, it would protect people analyzing video to add subtitles and other assistive features, it would protect archivists who had the legal right to make copies, and it would protect people making new browsers."
This is a major part of the argument being made here and helps to close the gap between blind ideology and serious issue.
- weeksie 9y agoThat's a perfectly reasonable point (which I agree with). It's naive to dismiss the concerns of content creators out of hand, but surely there's a middle ground we could get to legally over what constitutes fair use (or fair cracking?) when it comes to DRM.
- esigs 9y agoAgreed. I think what the EFF is saying her though is that the claimed protections for content creators is just a cover for anti competitive behavior. If they would agree to only enforce DRM/DMCA laws on people abusing copyright laws it would be easier to get behind it. Unfortunately, we have no protections on one side, and anti competitive shinanigans on the other.