4 ms·

Nobody's saying it isn't their right. But, it's also my right to criticize their decision as being irrational, mean-spirited, or whatever. I do question wheth

Nobody's saying it isn't their right. But, it's also my right to criticize their decision as being irrational, mean-spirited, or whatever. I do question whether Microsoft should have a "right" under the DMCA to prevent me from reverse engineering their protocols though. However, that's not an argument specific to any one product encumbered with anti-circumvention schemes.

tptacek 16y ago
I agree (up to the point where people try to start businesses based on circumvention techniques), but note that Microsoft actually doesn't have the right under DMCA to stop people from researching ways to break Kinect.
- frankus 16y ago
  I for one would be delighted if someone were to start a business making the razors-and-razorblades business model untenable. It's anticompetitive, distortionary, harms interoperability, and tempts businesses into spending endless amounts of money in an arms race that could better be spent making their products better.
  - rapind 16y ago
    That's just branding. There hasn't been consumer noticeable technological advancement in that market in probably 20 years or more. Honestly, is 10 blades going to increase my quality of life?
  - tptacek 16y ago
    I'm an entrepreneur. I work in a field notorious for generating a feeling of entitlement among laypeople. So, I have a hard time sympathizing with arguments that boil down to "if company X makes cool peripheral Y, I am entitled to use it in way Z that is contrary to X's business interests". My unfounded suspicion is that if the tables were turned, and Microsoft focused its (considerable!) systems research capabilities on, say, disrupting Wattvision's business model, Hacker News wouldn't be leaping to the defense of forced interoperability.
    - orangecat 16y ago
      "if company X makes cool peripheral Y, I am entitled to use it in way Z that is contrary to X's business interests". Er, yes? Claiming the opposite eviscerates property rights even more than the DMCA already does. My unfounded suspicion is that if the tables were turned, and Microsoft focused its (considerable!) systems research capabilities on, say, disrupting Wattvision's business model, Hacker News wouldn't be leaping to the defense of forced interoperability. Barring antitrust issues I have no legal or moral issues with that.
      - tptacek 16y ago
        You see the right to do whatever you want with any physical object you exchange money to possess. I see the right to design, build, and offer a product to the market under whatever terms I'd like. These rights are in conflict, and I see that, but let's not pretend that there's no other side to this.
        1337p337 16y ago
        Sure, there's another side to this, but it's not a valid side. Your side merely capitalizes on the present legal murkiness of the software/copyright issue. Console manufacturers, phone manufacturers, and a legion of other device manufacturers have spent three decades capitalizing on abuses of patent and copyright law. Patents exist not to lock out competition or allow total control over an invention, but as a method for making sure your work isn't stolen (for a limited time) and thus give you a commercial incentive to innovate. It is outright abuse to say that it gives anyone the right to dictate how devices are used, but is sadly an abuse that has become the status quo.
        tptacek 16y ago
        You write as if Microsoft discovered the Kinect, maybe deep inside some ancient system of caves, and now is hoarding them for their own nefarious purposes.
    - frankus 16y ago
pageman 16y ago
this might fall under a look-alike of the EFF iPhone exemption: http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/07/26 http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/07/26 <startquote> In its reasoning in favor of EFF's jailbreaking exemption, the Copyright Office rejected Apple's claim that copyright law prevents people from installing unapproved programs on iPhones: "When one jailbreaks a smartphone in order to make the operating system on that phone interoperable with an independently created application that has not been approved by the maker of the smartphone or the maker of its operating system, the modifications that are made purely for the purpose of such interoperability are fair uses." <endquote>

tptacek 16y ago

I agree (up to the point where people try to start businesses based on circumvention techniques), but note that Microsoft actually doesn't have the right under DMCA to stop people from researching ways to break Kinect.

frankus 16y ago
I for one would be delighted if someone were to start a business making the razors-and-razorblades business model untenable. It's anticompetitive, distortionary, harms interoperability, and tempts businesses into spending endless amounts of money in an arms race that could better be spent making their products better.
- rapind 16y ago
  That's just branding. There hasn't been consumer noticeable technological advancement in that market in probably 20 years or more. Honestly, is 10 blades going to increase my quality of life?
- tptacek 16y ago
  I'm an entrepreneur. I work in a field notorious for generating a feeling of entitlement among laypeople. So, I have a hard time sympathizing with arguments that boil down to "if company X makes cool peripheral Y, I am entitled to use it in way Z that is contrary to X's business interests". My unfounded suspicion is that if the tables were turned, and Microsoft focused its (considerable!) systems research capabilities on, say, disrupting Wattvision's business model, Hacker News wouldn't be leaping to the defense of forced interoperability.
  - orangecat 16y ago
    "if company X makes cool peripheral Y, I am entitled to use it in way Z that is contrary to X's business interests". Er, yes? Claiming the opposite eviscerates property rights even more than the DMCA already does. My unfounded suspicion is that if the tables were turned, and Microsoft focused its (considerable!) systems research capabilities on, say, disrupting Wattvision's business model, Hacker News wouldn't be leaping to the defense of forced interoperability. Barring antitrust issues I have no legal or moral issues with that.
    - tptacek 16y ago
      You see the right to do whatever you want with any physical object you exchange money to possess. I see the right to design, build, and offer a product to the market under whatever terms I'd like. These rights are in conflict, and I see that, but let's not pretend that there's no other side to this.
      - 1337p337 16y ago
        Sure, there's another side to this, but it's not a valid side. Your side merely capitalizes on the present legal murkiness of the software/copyright issue. Console manufacturers, phone manufacturers, and a legion of other device manufacturers have spent three decades capitalizing on abuses of patent and copyright law. Patents exist not to lock out competition or allow total control over an invention, but as a method for making sure your work isn't stolen (for a limited time) and thus give you a commercial incentive to innovate. It is outright abuse to say that it gives anyone the right to dictate how devices are used, but is sadly an abuse that has become the status quo.
        tptacek 16y ago
        You write as if Microsoft discovered the Kinect, maybe deep inside some ancient system of caves, and now is hoarding them for their own nefarious purposes.
  - frankus 16y ago

pageman 16y ago

this might fall under a look-alike of the EFF iPhone exemption: http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/07/26 http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/07/26 <startquote> In its reasoning in favor of EFF's jailbreaking exemption, the Copyright Office rejected Apple's claim that copyright law prevents people from installing unapproved programs on iPhones: "When one jailbreaks a smartphone in order to make the operating system on that phone interoperable with an independently created application that has not been approved by the maker of the smartphone or the maker of its operating system, the modifications that are made purely for the purpose of such interoperability are fair uses." <endquote>