4 ms·

>>Moreover, DRM prevents copyright content from entering the public domain. In my personal opinion, anything that's not available without DRM shouldn't get copy

>>Moreover, DRM prevents copyright content from entering the public domain. In my personal opinion, anything that's not available without DRM shouldn't get copyright - otherwise it subverts the deal at the centre of copyright. Inasmuch as I am sympathetic to the argument, how would a government force DRMless software without attacking encryption itself or violating a company's 1st amendment rights to sell whatever digital products as it sees fit? DRM is protected speech so long as encryption or encryption schemes are protected speech (malware a la Sony's rootkit notwithstanding). >>Copyright is not a natural right, the balance is totally out of whack. Copyright terms have become abusively long; the deal is not fair anymore. Copyright isn't a natural right but neither is someone else's content or products. Without copyright, every smart person would keep their inventions as trade secrets with limited disclosures/demonstrations that, like Greek fire, will eventually be lost to the ages. While copyright terms can be abusive and long, that alone does not make the concept invalid.

jdbernard 6y ago
The government doesn't necessarily have to take an offense stance at all. Just removing the legislative protection for DRM schemes would go as long way. You could make it a condition that companies that want to gain legal defense for their DRM'd content must register a DRM-free version with, for example, the Library of Congress.
- Dracophoenix 6y ago
  I agree with removing DMCA protections for circumventing DRM instead of outlawing or creating legislative disincentives for DRM outright (that would be a can of worms). However, it still doesn't sound like a full solution. Registration of the sort you propose, if done correctly, could work for e-books or movies. But what does that kind of registration look like for server- or cloud-based content (e.g. MMOs, subscription-only software) or video games that constantly get constant updates and DLCs?
  - jdbernard 6y ago
    I can think of a number of possible solutions (update the DRM-free copy the LoC has as you push patches out, for example). I think more interesting is the broader principle of withholding legal protection unless the company proactively provides a solution. Trying to mandate behavior by companies seems difficult to achieve politically, and leaves the government with the responsibility of enforcement. The enforcement/compliance work then scales based on the amount of creative material released with DRM. It seems unlikely that a government agency will keep up. On the other hand, it costs the government nothing to withhold legal protection. Making it the company's responsibility to provide a DRM-free copy (or eventual activation keys, etc., details will vary) to a trusted government entity in order to opt-in to legal protection of their copyright scales 1-to-1. It also aligns the incentives of both sides of the copyright problem. Companies have the full protection of law during the period in which the copyright exists and the public benefits from works entering the public domain automatically. As an added bonus, the government has a central place to invest resources in archival and preservation of the huge swaths of our culture that we're currently in danger of losing. I'm very grateful for the Internet Archive but it is a shame that they have to operate based on volunteer donations. It would be great to have a means to take a means for the companies who created the content to fund is archival (via nominal fees for artifact registration).
    - Dracophoenix 6y ago
      The moment legal protection is withheld on disagreeable terms is the moment that copyrights become a less popular vehicle for defending a holder's rights. Despite what you might you might think, that's not a good thing. Copyrights are positive incentives for disclosure (but not necessarily for continued availability) of information. It is in the interest of a government for one to publicly disclose information on the sciences and the useful arts. Preemptively neutering a holder's defense to his copyright doesn't disincentives DRM. On the contrary, it encourages stronger, broader trade secret protections as well as non-disclosure and exclusion agreements with regards to both the content and DRM. That would be a blow to libraries just as much as it would archival sites.

jdbernard 6y ago

The government doesn't necessarily have to take an offense stance at all. Just removing the legislative protection for DRM schemes would go as long way. You could make it a condition that companies that want to gain legal defense for their DRM'd content must register a DRM-free version with, for example, the Library of Congress.

Dracophoenix 6y ago
I agree with removing DMCA protections for circumventing DRM instead of outlawing or creating legislative disincentives for DRM outright (that would be a can of worms). However, it still doesn't sound like a full solution. Registration of the sort you propose, if done correctly, could work for e-books or movies. But what does that kind of registration look like for server- or cloud-based content (e.g. MMOs, subscription-only software) or video games that constantly get constant updates and DLCs?
- jdbernard 6y ago
  I can think of a number of possible solutions (update the DRM-free copy the LoC has as you push patches out, for example). I think more interesting is the broader principle of withholding legal protection unless the company proactively provides a solution. Trying to mandate behavior by companies seems difficult to achieve politically, and leaves the government with the responsibility of enforcement. The enforcement/compliance work then scales based on the amount of creative material released with DRM. It seems unlikely that a government agency will keep up. On the other hand, it costs the government nothing to withhold legal protection. Making it the company's responsibility to provide a DRM-free copy (or eventual activation keys, etc., details will vary) to a trusted government entity in order to opt-in to legal protection of their copyright scales 1-to-1. It also aligns the incentives of both sides of the copyright problem. Companies have the full protection of law during the period in which the copyright exists and the public benefits from works entering the public domain automatically. As an added bonus, the government has a central place to invest resources in archival and preservation of the huge swaths of our culture that we're currently in danger of losing. I'm very grateful for the Internet Archive but it is a shame that they have to operate based on volunteer donations. It would be great to have a means to take a means for the companies who created the content to fund is archival (via nominal fees for artifact registration).
  - Dracophoenix 6y ago
    The moment legal protection is withheld on disagreeable terms is the moment that copyrights become a less popular vehicle for defending a holder's rights. Despite what you might you might think, that's not a good thing. Copyrights are positive incentives for disclosure (but not necessarily for continued availability) of information. It is in the interest of a government for one to publicly disclose information on the sciences and the useful arts. Preemptively neutering a holder's defense to his copyright doesn't disincentives DRM. On the contrary, it encourages stronger, broader trade secret protections as well as non-disclosure and exclusion agreements with regards to both the content and DRM. That would be a blow to libraries just as much as it would archival sites.