4 ms·

>There is a legal consensus that the fact that a person may deactivate or go around a TPM does not mean that the technology fails to offer ‘effective control’ b

>There is a legal consensus that the fact that a person may deactivate or go around a TPM does not mean that the technology fails to offer ‘effective control’ because so holding would render the DCMA ‘nonsensical,” This position is absurd. "We have to rule this way or else the DMCA wouldn't apply to YouTube when it clearly does."

mlyle 4y ago
> This position is absurd. No. As much as I don't like this ruling, the reverse would be absurd. Holding that the "effective" adjective means "strong"... would mean the law prohibits circumventing impossible-to-circumvent technological protection measures but doesn't prohibit circumventing the ones that you actually can. It would have no force. This was clearly not Congress's intent.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > This was clearly not Congress's intent. It couldn't be, but Congress's intent makes no sense either way. A DRM system could simply be a .gif on a webpage or a sticker on a box that says "DRM." If you broke that DRM through the method of not being intimidated by the sticker, is that a special crime? Is there another way the .gif saying "DRM" on a web page can be deemed ineffective, unless effective means strong?
  - mlyle 4y ago
    > Is there another way the .gif saying "DRM" on a web page can be deemed ineffective, unless effective means strong? Effective generally means "capable of having the desired effect". The "DRM" here actually prevents the user from doing something. Unless you use a tool explicitly meant to circumvent it, or manually delve into developer world yourself, you can't just download it. The intent is to stop someone with a viable attack on a DRM system from legally spreading it broadly.
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  I doubt Congress' intent was to make it illegal to read some plain text sent to your computer either, however that is now the case in regards to YouTube.
selfhoster11 4y ago
They are not wrong. The DMCA is nonsensical.
- cogman10 4y ago
  IDK, did you see that section on boat hulls?

mlyle 4y ago

> This position is absurd. No. As much as I don't like this ruling, the reverse would be absurd. Holding that the "effective" adjective means "strong"... would mean the law prohibits circumventing impossible-to-circumvent technological protection measures but doesn't prohibit circumventing the ones that you actually can. It would have no force. This was clearly not Congress's intent.

pessimizer 4y ago
> This was clearly not Congress's intent. It couldn't be, but Congress's intent makes no sense either way. A DRM system could simply be a .gif on a webpage or a sticker on a box that says "DRM." If you broke that DRM through the method of not being intimidated by the sticker, is that a special crime? Is there another way the .gif saying "DRM" on a web page can be deemed ineffective, unless effective means strong?
- mlyle 4y ago
  > Is there another way the .gif saying "DRM" on a web page can be deemed ineffective, unless effective means strong? Effective generally means "capable of having the desired effect". The "DRM" here actually prevents the user from doing something. Unless you use a tool explicitly meant to circumvent it, or manually delve into developer world yourself, you can't just download it. The intent is to stop someone with a viable attack on a DRM system from legally spreading it broadly.
boomboomsubban 4y ago
I doubt Congress' intent was to make it illegal to read some plain text sent to your computer either, however that is now the case in regards to YouTube.

selfhoster11 4y ago

They are not wrong. The DMCA is nonsensical.

cogman10 4y ago
IDK, did you see that section on boat hulls?