> 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 tric

> 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.