3 ms·

> 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 pr

> 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.

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.