3 ms·
Problem with DMCA 1201 is that it's not even about copyright. It's about forbidding breaking DRM, which can have cases that have nothing to do with copyright (i
by shmerl 6y ago
Problem with DMCA 1201 is that it's not even about copyright. It's about forbidding breaking DRM, which can have cases that have nothing to do with copyright (i.e nothing is infringed by breaking it).
So whatever was authorized for copyright, can't just automatically legitimize DMCA 1201 which is an overreaching prohibition (which is ironic, since what makes DRM itself unethical is that it's an overreaching preemptive policing).
If DMCA 1201 just forbade breaking DRM for copyright infringement, then it could be different. But it's not doing that, so it has to be repealed.
> the WIPO Copyright Treaty's undemocratic negotiation process is immaterial to constitutional questions.
This is important for showing the corrupt nature of both DRM proponents and policy around DRM. It is undemocratic to use treaties as a backdoor to control legislative process. It's simply corruption. And if it's the nature of treaties to be undemocratic, then there should be even a stronger to push against using them to subvert legislation.
- kmeisthax 6y agoWhat you're describing is the actual state of the law regarding DMCA 1201. DRM only gets legal force when it has the effect of controlling access to a copyrighted work. This has been court-tested: Lexmark v. Static Control Components proves that you cannot legally enforce DRM that does not control access to copyrighted works. You can't copyright ink, ergo you can't argue that ink DRM is protected by DMCA 1201. That's probably the only reason why DMCA 1201 would pass a strict scrutiny test at all - it's evidence of narrow tailoring. BTW, what you're describing with treaties has a name: it's called policy laundering.
- shmerl 6y ago> DRM only gets legal force when it has the effect of controlling access to a copyrighted work. But that's not what DMCA 1201 is about though, it's just a trick it's using. It's about forbidding DRM breaking [on a copyrighted work]. What if breaking DRM has no bearing on the copyright itself? I.e. it doesn't affect it because nothing is infringed. DMCA 1201 still forbids it. So it's clear that it's wider than simply being about copyright and that's exactly the problem with it - being overreaching and forbidding perfectly legal things that copyright should have no business touching. DRM proponents realize it very well, and they abuse DMCA 1201 to extend copyright law into any area they want, as long as they can slap any kind of copyright + DRM on it. It basically gives them a rogue lawmaking tool that doesn't need to involve actual legislators. Like for example forbidding one to switch mobile carriers because it involves breaking DRM. Nothing really to do with copyright - it's about controlling the market. But they use DCMA 1201 for it. So DMCA 1201 is utter garbage and it's not only corrupt, it's clearly easily abused. > BTW, what you're describing with treaties has a name: it's called policy laundering. Yep, that's exactly the origins of DMCA 1201, so I'm always surprised when anyone tries to defend such clearly corrupt law. That's basically being proponents of corruption.