Your entire arguement is backed by a single anecdote of Tom Cruise. On top of that, your entire premise is the following statement: "Regressing us back to befo

Your entire arguement is backed by a single anecdote of Tom Cruise. On top of that, your entire premise is the following statement: "Regressing us back to before VCRs entered the market is the entire point." First of all, let me point out, this statement alone is beyond absurd and I will not be giving it any legitimacy whatsoever. Let me put it bluntly, you're wrong, and here's why: Users don’t experience Section 1201 as a copyright protection. They experience it as the reason they can’t fix their tractor [1], repair their car [2], or even buy cheaper printer ink [2]. And attempts to get exemptions to this law for these purposes—which, again, are unrelated to copyright infringement and create absurd conditions for users trying to use things they own—are always met with resistance. Professor Jessica Litman, of University of Michigan Law School, laid out the problem of 1201 clearly: The business that make products with embedded software have used the anti-circumvention provisions to discourage the marketing of compatible after-market parts or hobble independent repair and maintenance businesses. Customers who would prefer to repair their broken products rather than discard and replace them face legal obstacles they should not. It’s unreasonable to tell the owner of a tractor that if her tractor needs repairs, she ought to petition the Librarian of Congress for permission to make those repairs. 1201 covers pretty much anything that has a computer in it. In 1998, that meant a DVD; in 2020, it means the Internet of Things, from TVs to refrigerators to e-books to tractors. Which is why farmers trying to repair, modify or test those things—farmers, independent mechanics, security researchers, people making ebooks accessible to those with print disabilities, and so on—either have to abandon their work, risk being in violation of the law (including criminal liability), or ask the Library of Congress for an exemption to the law every three years. Put simply, the existing scheme doesn’t discourage piracy. Instead, it prevents people from truly owning their own devices; and, as Litman put it, “prevents licensed users from making licensed uses.” The intent of the DMCA 22 years ago was to discourage copyright infringement but create space for innovation and expression, for individuals as well as Hollywood and service providers. Over the course of the last two decades, however, many have forgotten who is supposed to occupy that space. We need to remember that this is not “Big Content v Big Tech” and ensure that users take center stage. > When weighing the very livelihoods of hardworking film-crew members against the complaints of a few whiny nerds who could otherwise get cushy jobs elsewhere, which would you -- as a lawmaker or judge -- side with? Excuse me? Everyone from Farmers, to Truck drivers, to mechanics, are ALL negatively affected. Not just "whiny nerds". [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/12/john-deere-really-doesnt-want-you-own-tractor https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/12/john-deere-really-does... [2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/one-weird-law-interferes-security-research-remix-culture-and-even-car-repair https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/one-weird-law-interfer...