5 ms·

While I respect the EFF, they do have their own ideology that makes them not necessarily able to give an objective summary of the law. Is there another account

by dhosek 6y ago

While I respect the EFF, they do have their own ideology that makes them not necessarily able to give an objective summary of the law. Is there another account of what the Mexican copyright law does anywhere?

gamblor956 6y ago
As just one example of the EFF's many nonsensical ideology-driven arguments, the EFF claims that the DCMA is an "unconstitutional" law because it enshrines the right of an IP holder to utilize digital copy protection mechanisms...Ignoring that copyright law is one of the few areas of law that the U.S. constitution specifically empowers Congress to legislate (Art I, sec 8 cl 8). It's silly stuff like this that keeps the EFF on the fringes of tech law instead of being at the forefront. (It's also disconcerting that they claim credit for legal outcomes that were achieved by others.)
- grandmczeb 6y ago
  This is a totally unfair representation of the EFF's arguments, which apply specifically to Section 1201 of the DMCA (the "anti-circumvention" section). https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/07/section-1201-dmca-cannot-pass-constitutional-scrutiny https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/07/section-1201-dmca-cann...
- syshum 6y ago
  Authoritarian copyright maximalists like yourself are the fringes of society and are an enemy to a free society. People just want to enjoy the content they purchase with out having layers up on layers of DRM and other broken non-sense blocking that enjoyment at every turn and spying on their every action >> the EFF claims that the DCMA is an "unconstitutional" law because it enshrines the right of an IP holder to utilize digital copy protection mechanisms ... .Ignoring that copyright law is one of the few areas of law that the U.S. constitution specifically empowers Congress to legislate (Art I, sec 8 cl 8). They are not ignoring that at all, while Congress was given the power and authority to enact limited copyright laws to promote the useful sciences, that authority does not extend to violations of Bill of Rights, or other provisions in the constitution or other Amendments For example using the copyright law as a justification Congress could not pass a law saying general warrants could be issued for an entire apartment building to look for copyright infringement, as that would be a violation of the 4th amendment. The EFF is making that claim the some sections of the DMCA violate the Bill of Rights, namely the 1st amendment
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  > Ignoring that copyright law is one of the few areas of law that the U.S. constitution specifically empowers Congress to legislate (Art I, sec 8 cl 8). "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" Does the DMCA require that DRM systems "fail open" once the work is no longer covered by copyright? I suppose that someone who tries to break a DRM system to access a work no longer covered by copyright might be able to convince a jury of their innocent intent. Imagine, though, someone selling a machine for copying DVDs but with a big warning on it saying "Only use this on copy-restricted DVDs if they contain works that are no longer covered by copyright". They'd better have a good lawyer to argue that constitutional case.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    Does the DMCA require that DRM systems "fail open" once the work is no longer covered by copyright? Irrelevant. Once the work is no longer protected by copyright, the DMCA no longer applies to make cracking any DRM locking up the work illegal. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201
    - dane-pgp 6y ago
      > (2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that— ... > (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; So you'd need to convince the court that the DRM-cracking device that you sell ("offer to the public") has more than "limited commercially significant purpose" despite being intended and marketed for use only on out-of-copyright works. The vast majority of DRM-encumbered media works probably have over 80 years of future copyright term applying to them, so a consumer would die before they ever need to crack the DRM and enjoy their access to the then-public domain works. On the other hand, works are entering the public domain every year, and some of these will be available in formats that are DRM-encumbered, so it seems unreasonable for Congress to have passed a law which effectively prevents people from selling devices that allow copyright to expire in practice.
- CamperBob2 6y ago
  In a just society, a creator would be forced to choose between self-enforcement of copyright through DRM, or judicial enforcement through conventional means. Not both. With DRM, the party on one side of the copyright bargain retains all of the spoils, for all time, at the other side's expense. That's all well and good, but the copyright holder shouldn't subsequently be able to use the law to enforce their unlimited terms.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    In a just society, a creator wouldn't have to make that decision at all. It's truly fucked up that privileged people feel like they can decide how other people should earn their living just so that they can avoid spending a few bucks. With DRM, the party on one side of the copyright bargain retains all of the spoils, for all time, at the other side's expense. This is not true. It is only illegal to crack DRM of copyright-protected works. Once a work falls out of copyright, it's fully legal to crack any DRM. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201
    - CamperBob2 6y ago
      This is not true. It is only illegal to crack DRM of copyright-protected works. Once a work falls out of copyright, it's fully legal to crack any DRM. Sure, it's legal, but to the extent it's not already impossible for consumers to take advantage of that provision, it will be soon enough. There is no law against deploying cryptographically-sound DRM that would require the resources of a Kardashev Type III civilization to crack. And that's the problem. If you rely on such measures, you should at least be required to deposit an unprotected copy of the work in escrow for open release when the copyright term expires. Additionally, the law casually conflates access to a work with the ability to copy it. Now that everything is moving to the cloud, DRM can block both, potentially forever. That's a one-sided bargain if there ever was one. Talk about "privilege!" The use of DRM on copyrighted works amounts to taking from the public domain without compensation. It should be prohibited by law, not protected by it.
    - curryst 6y ago
soneil 6y ago
While I'm entirely unversed to discus what the law actually achieves, I do think it's interesting to note that it's almost entirely to fulfil new obligations placed on them by T-MEC/USMCA (the can-mex-US agreement replacing NAFTA)
- patmorgan23 6y ago
  I heard someone refer to the USMCA as the U-smak-ah and that's my cannon pronunciation now.
  - ChainOfFools 6y ago
    I wonder how (M)exico ended up ahead of (CA)nada in that initialism, given the current US administration's open contempt for its southern neighbor. Perhaps someone on the taak force pointed out that, by the opposite ordering the resulting name, USCAM, would have been a little too on the nose.
    - foogazi 6y ago
      The USCAM ? You forget the current administration’s contempt for every democratic ally / trade partner
    - demux 6y ago
      I rather like CAMUS :)
    - xemoka 6y ago
      It seems to be called something different up here in Canada: CUSMA
ggm 6y ago
"while I respect the EFF.. I don't respect the EFF. So can somebody give me something useful I can cite which isn't the EFF because <reasons>" If you want to start saying ideology, then I think you misunderstand the nature of facts based disagreement. It is fine not to agree with the EFF. The problem is your statement implies something they say of fact, not opinion is in dispute. The EFF like any other cause-based body, has "views" and also explores facts. If there are facts to dispute, lets dispute them.

by dhosek 6y ago

gamblor956 6y ago

As just one example of the EFF's many nonsensical ideology-driven arguments, the EFF claims that the DCMA is an "unconstitutional" law because it enshrines the right of an IP holder to utilize digital copy protection mechanisms...Ignoring that copyright law is one of the few areas of law that the U.S. constitution specifically empowers Congress to legislate (Art I, sec 8 cl 8). It's silly stuff like this that keeps the EFF on the fringes of tech law instead of being at the forefront. (It's also disconcerting that they claim credit for legal outcomes that were achieved by others.)

grandmczeb 6y ago
This is a totally unfair representation of the EFF's arguments, which apply specifically to Section 1201 of the DMCA (the "anti-circumvention" section). https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/07/section-1201-dmca-cannot-pass-constitutional-scrutiny https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/07/section-1201-dmca-cann...
syshum 6y ago
Authoritarian copyright maximalists like yourself are the fringes of society and are an enemy to a free society. People just want to enjoy the content they purchase with out having layers up on layers of DRM and other broken non-sense blocking that enjoyment at every turn and spying on their every action >> the EFF claims that the DCMA is an "unconstitutional" law because it enshrines the right of an IP holder to utilize digital copy protection mechanisms ... .Ignoring that copyright law is one of the few areas of law that the U.S. constitution specifically empowers Congress to legislate (Art I, sec 8 cl 8). They are not ignoring that at all, while Congress was given the power and authority to enact limited copyright laws to promote the useful sciences, that authority does not extend to violations of Bill of Rights, or other provisions in the constitution or other Amendments For example using the copyright law as a justification Congress could not pass a law saying general warrants could be issued for an entire apartment building to look for copyright infringement, as that would be a violation of the 4th amendment. The EFF is making that claim the some sections of the DMCA violate the Bill of Rights, namely the 1st amendment
dane-pgp 6y ago
> Ignoring that copyright law is one of the few areas of law that the U.S. constitution specifically empowers Congress to legislate (Art I, sec 8 cl 8). "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" Does the DMCA require that DRM systems "fail open" once the work is no longer covered by copyright? I suppose that someone who tries to break a DRM system to access a work no longer covered by copyright might be able to convince a jury of their innocent intent. Imagine, though, someone selling a machine for copying DVDs but with a big warning on it saying "Only use this on copy-restricted DVDs if they contain works that are no longer covered by copyright". They'd better have a good lawyer to argue that constitutional case.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Does the DMCA require that DRM systems "fail open" once the work is no longer covered by copyright? Irrelevant. Once the work is no longer protected by copyright, the DMCA no longer applies to make cracking any DRM locking up the work illegal. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201
  - dane-pgp 6y ago
    > (2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that— ... > (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; So you'd need to convince the court that the DRM-cracking device that you sell ("offer to the public") has more than "limited commercially significant purpose" despite being intended and marketed for use only on out-of-copyright works. The vast majority of DRM-encumbered media works probably have over 80 years of future copyright term applying to them, so a consumer would die before they ever need to crack the DRM and enjoy their access to the then-public domain works. On the other hand, works are entering the public domain every year, and some of these will be available in formats that are DRM-encumbered, so it seems unreasonable for Congress to have passed a law which effectively prevents people from selling devices that allow copyright to expire in practice.
CamperBob2 6y ago
In a just society, a creator would be forced to choose between self-enforcement of copyright through DRM, or judicial enforcement through conventional means. Not both. With DRM, the party on one side of the copyright bargain retains all of the spoils, for all time, at the other side's expense. That's all well and good, but the copyright holder shouldn't subsequently be able to use the law to enforce their unlimited terms.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  In a just society, a creator wouldn't have to make that decision at all. It's truly fucked up that privileged people feel like they can decide how other people should earn their living just so that they can avoid spending a few bucks. With DRM, the party on one side of the copyright bargain retains all of the spoils, for all time, at the other side's expense. This is not true. It is only illegal to crack DRM of copyright-protected works. Once a work falls out of copyright, it's fully legal to crack any DRM. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201
  - CamperBob2 6y ago
    This is not true. It is only illegal to crack DRM of copyright-protected works. Once a work falls out of copyright, it's fully legal to crack any DRM. Sure, it's legal, but to the extent it's not already impossible for consumers to take advantage of that provision, it will be soon enough. There is no law against deploying cryptographically-sound DRM that would require the resources of a Kardashev Type III civilization to crack. And that's the problem. If you rely on such measures, you should at least be required to deposit an unprotected copy of the work in escrow for open release when the copyright term expires. Additionally, the law casually conflates access to a work with the ability to copy it. Now that everything is moving to the cloud, DRM can block both, potentially forever. That's a one-sided bargain if there ever was one. Talk about "privilege!" The use of DRM on copyrighted works amounts to taking from the public domain without compensation. It should be prohibited by law, not protected by it.
  - curryst 6y ago

soneil 6y ago

While I'm entirely unversed to discus what the law actually achieves, I do think it's interesting to note that it's almost entirely to fulfil new obligations placed on them by T-MEC/USMCA (the can-mex-US agreement replacing NAFTA)

patmorgan23 6y ago
I heard someone refer to the USMCA as the U-smak-ah and that's my cannon pronunciation now.
- ChainOfFools 6y ago
  I wonder how (M)exico ended up ahead of (CA)nada in that initialism, given the current US administration's open contempt for its southern neighbor. Perhaps someone on the taak force pointed out that, by the opposite ordering the resulting name, USCAM, would have been a little too on the nose.
  - foogazi 6y ago
    The USCAM ? You forget the current administration’s contempt for every democratic ally / trade partner
  - demux 6y ago
    I rather like CAMUS :)
  - xemoka 6y ago
    It seems to be called something different up here in Canada: CUSMA

ggm 6y ago

"while I respect the EFF.. I don't respect the EFF. So can somebody give me something useful I can cite which isn't the EFF because <reasons>" If you want to start saying ideology, then I think you misunderstand the nature of facts based disagreement. It is fine not to agree with the EFF. The problem is your statement implies something they say of fact, not opinion is in dispute. The EFF like any other cause-based body, has "views" and also explores facts. If there are facts to dispute, lets dispute them.