3 ms·

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]
    - doctorpangloss 2y ago
      What is the difference between doing something illegal and having consequences and doing something illegal that has no consequences?
StrangeDoctor 2y ago
(not op) I think DMCA specifically should be repealed. We can still have DRM/Copyright/etc if enough people want it, we could look at other systems, but DMCA itself is awful. Repealing it doesn't make any statement about piracy.

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]
  - doctorpangloss 2y ago
    What is the difference between doing something illegal and having consequences and doing something illegal that has no consequences?

StrangeDoctor 2y ago

(not op) I think DMCA specifically should be repealed. We can still have DRM/Copyright/etc if enough people want it, we could look at other systems, but DMCA itself is awful. Repealing it doesn't make any statement about piracy.