6 ms·

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

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
> 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. There's a huge grey area there for DRM schemes that are used on expired works, but also on currently copyrighted works. You would need to be _very_ sure that the DRM scheme is only used on works where the copyright has expired. It's an important distinction; otherwise you could simply create a version of "Happy Birthday" with the latest and greatest DRM, then proceed to crack it and come out with a legal way to crack that DRM on any work. > 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. That's not the only reason, although for some it is the primary reason. DRM can also make legally acquired software worthless (i.e. if they require key servers, but they shut down the key servers). DRM can also tie you to a particular device, like Amazon's ebooks. Doesn't it seem kind of fucked up that I can buy a thing, but I can only use it at the pleasure of the seller? Nope, you can't put that Wonderbread in this toaster. This toaster only takes GE branded GeneralToast bread; violations will be prosecuted under the DMCA. There are more general arguments against the theory of copyright in general, but you've likely seen them and I don't have anything grand to add to them.

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

> 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. There's a huge grey area there for DRM schemes that are used on expired works, but also on currently copyrighted works. You would need to be _very_ sure that the DRM scheme is only used on works where the copyright has expired. It's an important distinction; otherwise you could simply create a version of "Happy Birthday" with the latest and greatest DRM, then proceed to crack it and come out with a legal way to crack that DRM on any work. > 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. That's not the only reason, although for some it is the primary reason. DRM can also make legally acquired software worthless (i.e. if they require key servers, but they shut down the key servers). DRM can also tie you to a particular device, like Amazon's ebooks. Doesn't it seem kind of fucked up that I can buy a thing, but I can only use it at the pleasure of the seller? Nope, you can't put that Wonderbread in this toaster. This toaster only takes GE branded GeneralToast bread; violations will be prosecuted under the DMCA. There are more general arguments against the theory of copyright in general, but you've likely seen them and I don't have anything grand to add to them.