5 ms·

I wish we would just repeal the DMCA. Under no circumstances should we need an exemption from the copyright office just to be able to repair an ice cream machi

I wish we would just repeal the DMCA. Under no circumstances should we need an exemption from the copyright office just to be able to repair an ice cream machine. It's not even a permanent exemption! The DMCA causes many weird problems.

readthenotes1 2y ago
Disney was willing to go to the ends of the Earth to protect Mickey mouse...
- Izikiel43 2y ago
  And Paraguay won
  - lolinder 2y ago
    Reference for those who didn't see it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41550417 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41550417
    - selimthegrim 2y ago
      I really have to wonder if the BoJack Horseman writers knew about this when they wrote the Disney trademark episode.
  - MichaelZuo 2y ago
    Well they didn’t literally go to every last square km on planet Earth… so it’s not that surprising.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- eli 2y ago
  Sure, but the anti-circumvention provisions in particular just inconvenience everyone. It's not like DVDs being "protected" prevented them from being ripped.
doctorpangloss 2y ago
Do you think people should face consequences for piracy? If not, should DRM be legal then?
- coder543 2y ago
  I’m not a lawyer, but I think it’s pretty clear that piracy is not illegal because of the DMCA; it’s illegal because it violates normal copyright laws. Repealing the DMCA would not change the legal status of piracy. Repealing the DMCA also wouldn’t make DRM illegal, but DRM would still be exactly as (in)effective as it has already proven to be countless times. DRM has done nothing to restrict piracy, as far as I can tell. Repealing the DMCA would simply allow people to more freely break DRM in pursuit of lawful purposes, which are currently restricted unfairly, including activities that would fall strictly under Fair Use. I would argue the DMCA is infringing my legal rights for no benefit to society. Distributing copies of copyrighted content without authorization was unlawful long before the DMCA, outside of Fair Use scenarios.
- xbar 2y ago
  Piracy was just as Federally illegal prior to the DMCA. Think back to Streetfighter....
  - doctorpangloss 2y ago
    It’s a simple question. I know it’s illegal. Should regular people face consequences or not? The status quo is “no,” which is the first step to understanding why making consequences for circumventing DRM is a bitter compromise that is maybe the best option.
    - nemomarx 2y ago
      I'm not sure I follow. In the case where breaking DRM isn't illegal, but piracy still is illegal, what happens that you think is bad?
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
twothreeone 2y ago
It's still weird to me that we ended up in a world in which every bit of information can now be copied at zero cost and instead of heralding and building upon that technological achievement we've somehow decided that instead we're going to make laws to protect and enforce rent seeking instead. I assume it's one of those things where a few corpos just outplayed 99% of the population; just like universal health care, or public education.
- staplers 2y ago
  I assume it's one of those things where a few corpos just outplayed 99% of the population "The key element of social control is the strategy of distraction that is to divert public attention from important issues and changes decided by political and economic elites" -Chomsky
  - kiba 2y ago
    Everyone believe they need copyright, therefore it is the status quo.
    - Teever 2y ago
      Does everyone believe that we need copyright to be the exact way that it is though? I'm pretty sure that the reason that copyright laws are the way they are is because certain industries in the US lobby the government to strong arm other countries into adopting onerous copyright restrictions as part of free trade agreements. Whatever you feel about the merits of intellectual property laws the idea that they're wrapped up as 'free trade' when they in fact make things that would otherwise be free cost money is downright Orwellian. Maybe countries that don't really have a film or tv industry don't want to see copyright on those products and why would they? Why would they want to see their citizens paying American countries for something that would otherwise be free?
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        I'm fine going back to the old 14+14 rules copyright originally. having your creation for an entire generation seems appropriate. But opinions are all across the spectrum on this issue. I think the primary reason the "spirit" of current copyright broke down is because it's been reduced to hoarding over protecting. the idea is that I can license out an idea if I really want to make use of it. So creations flow and the company makes their own cut out of it. But I can't just walk up to Disney and pay 100 dollars ,1000, maybe even 1 million to grab Mickey Mouse and work with something. Depending on their products, they may not want anyone using Mickey period, even if there is no mickey product cycle. You basically need to be EA or Mattel or Warner Bros. to even begin being considered for such a thing. That's their right but it spoils the social contract. When everything by default is locked down, there is no creation flowing. Just broken dreams for abandoned franchises everyone else would love to make use of.

readthenotes1 2y ago

Disney was willing to go to the ends of the Earth to protect Mickey mouse...

Izikiel43 2y ago
And Paraguay won
- lolinder 2y ago
  Reference for those who didn't see it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41550417 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41550417
  - selimthegrim 2y ago
    I really have to wonder if the BoJack Horseman writers knew about this when they wrote the Disney trademark episode.
- MichaelZuo 2y ago
  Well they didn’t literally go to every last square km on planet Earth… so it’s not that surprising.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
eli 2y ago
Sure, but the anti-circumvention provisions in particular just inconvenience everyone. It's not like DVDs being "protected" prevented them from being ripped.

doctorpangloss 2y ago

Do you think people should face consequences for piracy? If not, should DRM be legal then?

coder543 2y ago
I’m not a lawyer, but I think it’s pretty clear that piracy is not illegal because of the DMCA; it’s illegal because it violates normal copyright laws. Repealing the DMCA would not change the legal status of piracy. Repealing the DMCA also wouldn’t make DRM illegal, but DRM would still be exactly as (in)effective as it has already proven to be countless times. DRM has done nothing to restrict piracy, as far as I can tell. Repealing the DMCA would simply allow people to more freely break DRM in pursuit of lawful purposes, which are currently restricted unfairly, including activities that would fall strictly under Fair Use. I would argue the DMCA is infringing my legal rights for no benefit to society. Distributing copies of copyrighted content without authorization was unlawful long before the DMCA, outside of Fair Use scenarios.
xbar 2y ago
Piracy was just as Federally illegal prior to the DMCA. Think back to Streetfighter....
- doctorpangloss 2y ago
  It’s a simple question. I know it’s illegal. Should regular people face consequences or not? The status quo is “no,” which is the first step to understanding why making consequences for circumventing DRM is a bitter compromise that is maybe the best option.
  - nemomarx 2y ago
    I'm not sure I follow. In the case where breaking DRM isn't illegal, but piracy still is illegal, what happens that you think is bad?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

twothreeone 2y ago

It's still weird to me that we ended up in a world in which every bit of information can now be copied at zero cost and instead of heralding and building upon that technological achievement we've somehow decided that instead we're going to make laws to protect and enforce rent seeking instead. I assume it's one of those things where a few corpos just outplayed 99% of the population; just like universal health care, or public education.

staplers 2y ago
I assume it's one of those things where a few corpos just outplayed 99% of the population "The key element of social control is the strategy of distraction that is to divert public attention from important issues and changes decided by political and economic elites" -Chomsky
- kiba 2y ago
  Everyone believe they need copyright, therefore it is the status quo.
  - Teever 2y ago
    Does everyone believe that we need copyright to be the exact way that it is though? I'm pretty sure that the reason that copyright laws are the way they are is because certain industries in the US lobby the government to strong arm other countries into adopting onerous copyright restrictions as part of free trade agreements. Whatever you feel about the merits of intellectual property laws the idea that they're wrapped up as 'free trade' when they in fact make things that would otherwise be free cost money is downright Orwellian. Maybe countries that don't really have a film or tv industry don't want to see copyright on those products and why would they? Why would they want to see their citizens paying American countries for something that would otherwise be free?
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      I'm fine going back to the old 14+14 rules copyright originally. having your creation for an entire generation seems appropriate. But opinions are all across the spectrum on this issue. I think the primary reason the "spirit" of current copyright broke down is because it's been reduced to hoarding over protecting. the idea is that I can license out an idea if I really want to make use of it. So creations flow and the company makes their own cut out of it. But I can't just walk up to Disney and pay 100 dollars ,1000, maybe even 1 million to grab Mickey Mouse and work with something. Depending on their products, they may not want anyone using Mickey period, even if there is no mickey product cycle. You basically need to be EA or Mattel or Warner Bros. to even begin being considered for such a thing. That's their right but it spoils the social contract. When everything by default is locked down, there is no creation flowing. Just broken dreams for abandoned franchises everyone else would love to make use of.