3 ms·
Law isn't absolute, that's why we have courts, judges, juries. Unlike source code, laws are dynamic and subject to interpretation. It's a restriction because i
by pipo234 3y ago
Law isn't absolute, that's why we have courts, judges, juries. Unlike source code, laws are dynamic and subject to interpretation.
It's a restriction because it's attempting to protect the copyright, while violating the rights granted to the user under fair use policy. Similarly, it could be violating privacy rights or open back doors that violate cybersecurity laws. If laws change (copyright laws, for instance), DRM won't magically adjust.
[EDIT] In summary: it's a balance, where different conflicting interests ought to be weighed. But we have DRM trying to close every door except the one intended by the copyright holder; versus: the user expecting stuff to work somewhat coherently and finding ways to circumvent the restrictions (often, though certainly not always, with benign intentions).
- yawpitch 3y agoSure, laws are open to interpretation… by judges, and judges will quite happily tell you that there are no rights “granted” under the fair use doctrine, and that no violation of those imaginary rights can possibly exist. The only legal right in play is copyright and the legitimate copyright holder has that right, exclusively, and can sue anyone they believe is infringing on their copyright… what the fair use doctrine carves out is an affirmative defense for particular kinds of transformative infringement, but it grants no right to infringe to the infringer, any more than successfully asserting self defense grants the self defender the right to murder. Each doctrine excuses from consequence what remains an unlawful act.