4 ms·

>2. You can't tell anyone how to circumvent DRM, regardless of purpose. This is the sort of violation being alleged here. I'm curious: why would this be the ca

>2. You can't tell anyone how to circumvent DRM, regardless of purpose. This is the sort of violation being alleged here. I'm curious: why would this be the case? This is a restriction of speech that doesn't contain copyrighted content enacted by a copyright law. This seems like charging someone, by using an anti-burglary law, because they taught someone else how to pick a lock .

na85 5y ago
>I'm curious: why would this be the case? Because the DMCA, like most US law, is written by corporations without regard for the common folk. The RIAA and MPAA literally don't give a shit what happens so long as they get to keep gouging the public with their antiquated business models. They can't compete so they resort to litigation to protect their bottom line(s).
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  To be fair, congress mostly doesn’t give a shit what happens either. I’m genuinely curious if this aspect of the law would (or has) stand up to scrutiny, given that congress regularly writes unconstitutional laws, and the Supreme Court really really really hates prior restraint.
caf 5y ago
Yes, that is exactly what this is like, and if this was 1998 you could have joined us all in a rousing debate about the chilling implications of all this.
AnthonyMouse 5y ago
Just to give you an idea of how dumb this law is, try this for a hypothetical. Alice uses DRM to protect her copyrighted work. Bob uses the exact same DRM to stop you from copying public domain works, for example. You publish some code to break Bob's DRM. Is that illegal? The law shouldn't enable Bob to do that. But if you can have tools to break Bob's DRM, the tools will break Alice's DRM because they're the same, and then the law is pointless and might as well be repealed. But if it's not legal to break Bob's DRM, then obviously the law is ridiculous and needs to be repealed, if it isn't already unconstitutional as a result. We should not still have this.
- GuB-42 5y ago
  I don't think that a law preventing you from breaking Bob's DRM just because it protects public domain is ridiculous. Public domain just means that nobody owns the rights, it is not an obligation for anyone who owns a copy to make it available to everyone. For example, I can own a copy of Moby Dick and do everything in my power to make sure that you don't get my copy, and if you break into my house to read it, I can sue you for that, and I don't think "but I wanted to read a public domain book" is going to be well received. What I can't do is prevent you from getting your own copy of Moby Dick from someone more willing to share it, and then share it yourself.
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    > I don't think that a law preventing you from breaking Bob's DRM just because it protects public domain is ridiculous. Public domain just means that nobody owns the rights, it is not an obligation for anyone who owns a copy to make it available to everyone. That's not what's happening. Bob is making it available to everyone, and then trying to reassert a copyright on something that isn't. Suppose Bob was the copyright owner, last year, before the work entered the public domain. He never distributed any copy without DRM, so no DRM-free copies exist. This is fine? Section 1201 of the DMCA was created to eliminate the public domain? You're also missing the point. Stop trying to argue about the specifics of the thing Bob is doing and just choose anything you feel would be illegitimate. Preventing the use of third party toner cartridges, preventing farmers from repairing their tractors, take your pick. That's obviously not what the law was intended to do and it shouldn't be doing that. But when Bob is using the same DRM as Alice, either you can publish tools to break it or you can't. If you can, the law is pointless. If you can't, the law is wrong.
    - rdmond 5y ago
      > Suppose Bob was the copyright owner, last year, before the work entered the public domain. He never distributed any copy without DRM, so no DRM-free copies exist. This is fine? Section 1201 of the DMCA was created to eliminate the public domain? No law compels Bob to provide people with new copies once the work enters public domain (and remember, Bob's publication might contain separate works with their own copyrights like cover art or an introduction). Once it does, Bob can't stop you from distributing a version you created by buying a print copy and scanning it or taking screenshots of his DRM version and running them through OCR (as long as you don't include the cover art or introduction). If Bob's DRM was unique to this one book, there might be an argument that breaking it was the same (as long as there's no cover art and no introduction). Since Bob's DRM is likely used for other works not in the public domain, it's going to be hard to distinguish your breaking it for this PD work from the fact that you've broken it for lots of other in-copyright things.
anticensor 5y ago
> This seems like charging someone, by using an anti-burglary law, because they taught someone else how to pick a lock . Hungary has such a law.

na85 5y ago

>I'm curious: why would this be the case? Because the DMCA, like most US law, is written by corporations without regard for the common folk. The RIAA and MPAA literally don't give a shit what happens so long as they get to keep gouging the public with their antiquated business models. They can't compete so they resort to litigation to protect their bottom line(s).

ashtonkem 5y ago
To be fair, congress mostly doesn’t give a shit what happens either. I’m genuinely curious if this aspect of the law would (or has) stand up to scrutiny, given that congress regularly writes unconstitutional laws, and the Supreme Court really really really hates prior restraint.

caf 5y ago

Yes, that is exactly what this is like, and if this was 1998 you could have joined us all in a rousing debate about the chilling implications of all this.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

Just to give you an idea of how dumb this law is, try this for a hypothetical. Alice uses DRM to protect her copyrighted work. Bob uses the exact same DRM to stop you from copying public domain works, for example. You publish some code to break Bob's DRM. Is that illegal? The law shouldn't enable Bob to do that. But if you can have tools to break Bob's DRM, the tools will break Alice's DRM because they're the same, and then the law is pointless and might as well be repealed. But if it's not legal to break Bob's DRM, then obviously the law is ridiculous and needs to be repealed, if it isn't already unconstitutional as a result. We should not still have this.

GuB-42 5y ago
I don't think that a law preventing you from breaking Bob's DRM just because it protects public domain is ridiculous. Public domain just means that nobody owns the rights, it is not an obligation for anyone who owns a copy to make it available to everyone. For example, I can own a copy of Moby Dick and do everything in my power to make sure that you don't get my copy, and if you break into my house to read it, I can sue you for that, and I don't think "but I wanted to read a public domain book" is going to be well received. What I can't do is prevent you from getting your own copy of Moby Dick from someone more willing to share it, and then share it yourself.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  > I don't think that a law preventing you from breaking Bob's DRM just because it protects public domain is ridiculous. Public domain just means that nobody owns the rights, it is not an obligation for anyone who owns a copy to make it available to everyone. That's not what's happening. Bob is making it available to everyone, and then trying to reassert a copyright on something that isn't. Suppose Bob was the copyright owner, last year, before the work entered the public domain. He never distributed any copy without DRM, so no DRM-free copies exist. This is fine? Section 1201 of the DMCA was created to eliminate the public domain? You're also missing the point. Stop trying to argue about the specifics of the thing Bob is doing and just choose anything you feel would be illegitimate. Preventing the use of third party toner cartridges, preventing farmers from repairing their tractors, take your pick. That's obviously not what the law was intended to do and it shouldn't be doing that. But when Bob is using the same DRM as Alice, either you can publish tools to break it or you can't. If you can, the law is pointless. If you can't, the law is wrong.
  - rdmond 5y ago
    > Suppose Bob was the copyright owner, last year, before the work entered the public domain. He never distributed any copy without DRM, so no DRM-free copies exist. This is fine? Section 1201 of the DMCA was created to eliminate the public domain? No law compels Bob to provide people with new copies once the work enters public domain (and remember, Bob's publication might contain separate works with their own copyrights like cover art or an introduction). Once it does, Bob can't stop you from distributing a version you created by buying a print copy and scanning it or taking screenshots of his DRM version and running them through OCR (as long as you don't include the cover art or introduction). If Bob's DRM was unique to this one book, there might be an argument that breaking it was the same (as long as there's no cover art and no introduction). Since Bob's DRM is likely used for other works not in the public domain, it's going to be hard to distinguish your breaking it for this PD work from the fact that you've broken it for lots of other in-copyright things.

anticensor 5y ago

> This seems like charging someone, by using an anti-burglary law, because they taught someone else how to pick a lock . Hungary has such a law.