4 ms·

We're way overdue to abolish the DMCA, in particular the "anti-circumvention" felonies. It shouldn't be a crime for me to customize the product I purchased. Or

by Terr_ 1y ago

We're way overdue to abolish the DMCA, in particular the "anti-circumvention" felonies. It shouldn't be a crime for me to customize the product I purchased. Or to sell people a kit to do the customization themselves.

ACCount37 1y ago
Better yet: ban hardware vendors from denying the user an ability to customize software. They don't have to make it easy, but they should be forced to give a way to opt out of walled gardens and bypass "secure boot".
- mindslight 1y ago
  Better yet: declare hardware and software to be two independent products/markets, and that tying them together is illegal anti-competitive bundling. Software products must be developed based on publicly-available hardware documentation, and using unpublished documentation from the hardware manufacturer should be illegal. The points where this might seem a little wonky (how do you deal with a hardware manufacturer constantly bumping chip revs) is exactly a constraint the market should be optimizing around in order to produce more end-user legibility/autonomy.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
Andrex 1y ago
Throw away the DMCA and you throw away all safe harbors for websites, and then the internet is truly screwed. There's no way the current congress would ever accept such a thing again -- Section 230 has been weaponized against it already. What we should be saying is Improve the DMCA. You've already clued into the biggest thing that needs to change (DRM/anti-anti-circumvention). Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. This is unpopular to say in HN-type circles but the DMCA is actually not that bad and mostly works as it should.
- Terr_ 1y ago
  The protections of section 230 are from an entirely different law (CDA 1996), even repealing the whole DMCA is separate.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- conductr 1y ago
  Any improvement is a change and you can’t just make “improvements” when the changes require politicians. It’s likely they would seize the opportunity to change a lot more than the improvements you feel are needed.
- ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
  > Throw away the DMCA and you throw away all safe harbors for websites, and then the internet is truly screwed Yet we have plenty of internet outside of the USA where we don't have the DMCA. There are various laws that tackle some parts of it, but there's also consumer-friendly laws as well (e.g. the right to repair although that's for physical goods).
- newsclues 1y ago
  If there is anything good in the DMCA those sections can be reimplemented in law. But we should not tolerate broken laws because they have some benefits, when we have the power to remove and replace bad laws with good ones.
osigurdson 1y ago
A simpler regulation would be to disclose at the time of purchase how much ad content that a given device that one is purchasing will display. That way if you want something cheap and are ok with an ad sponsored device, everything is fine. If you don't want ads, buy a competitor's product that doesn't have ads. If competition isn't broken this model should work fine.
- Terr_ 1y ago
  > A simpler regulation [is disclosing] how much ad content I disagree, it's much less simple in the long run. (A phenomenon I'm sure is painfully-familiar to a lot of software developers.) First, it's playing whack-a-mole with just one of many kinds of infringement on the user's ownership. It does nothing to protect against aggressive spying "telemetry", against forcing users to make an Acme Fridge Online Account to continue, or against standard/free features being "discontinued" and then introducing a suspiciously similar paid-subscription option. Second, even in that narrow "showing ads" aspect, there are too many dimensions to lock down by spec. For example, consider the difference between a system that shows X minutes of ads when idle which are instantly-dismissable, versus another system that shows fewer/shorter/smaller ads which are unskippable phases of normal operation. In contrast, freeing users to fight back--and to share what they've developed--encourages a democratized and counterbalancing force, which will naturally be strongly aligned to consumer interests regardless of yearly electoral changes.
  - osigurdson 1y ago
    Maybe it can just be binary: zero ads or up to and including 100% ads.
xnx 1y ago
The anti-circumvention rule is great, just backwards. There should be penalties for companies that try to prevent their hardware from being modified.
pllbnk 1y ago
But then what's the point of buying a device like this in the first place? I agree with the sentiment, but I would only buy this device if I wanted to use Amazon's services. If I decided to customize it, I couldn't blame Amazon for refusing the service. Perhaps there could be a government-mandated requirement to distinguish between "buy" and "rent". If you get a device bundled with a service, then there should be a subscription fee you have to pay for it without the ability to outright "buy" it. That would make it very obvious to people whether they are buying something to own or merely renting it. My take is very simplistic here but I hope I managed to convey the concept.

by Terr_ 1y ago

ACCount37 1y ago

Better yet: ban hardware vendors from denying the user an ability to customize software. They don't have to make it easy, but they should be forced to give a way to opt out of walled gardens and bypass "secure boot".

mindslight 1y ago
Better yet: declare hardware and software to be two independent products/markets, and that tying them together is illegal anti-competitive bundling. Software products must be developed based on publicly-available hardware documentation, and using unpublished documentation from the hardware manufacturer should be illegal. The points where this might seem a little wonky (how do you deal with a hardware manufacturer constantly bumping chip revs) is exactly a constraint the market should be optimizing around in order to produce more end-user legibility/autonomy.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

Andrex 1y ago

Throw away the DMCA and you throw away all safe harbors for websites, and then the internet is truly screwed. There's no way the current congress would ever accept such a thing again -- Section 230 has been weaponized against it already. What we should be saying is Improve the DMCA. You've already clued into the biggest thing that needs to change (DRM/anti-anti-circumvention). Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. This is unpopular to say in HN-type circles but the DMCA is actually not that bad and mostly works as it should.

Terr_ 1y ago
The protections of section 230 are from an entirely different law (CDA 1996), even repealing the whole DMCA is separate.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
conductr 1y ago
Any improvement is a change and you can’t just make “improvements” when the changes require politicians. It’s likely they would seize the opportunity to change a lot more than the improvements you feel are needed.
ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
> Throw away the DMCA and you throw away all safe harbors for websites, and then the internet is truly screwed Yet we have plenty of internet outside of the USA where we don't have the DMCA. There are various laws that tackle some parts of it, but there's also consumer-friendly laws as well (e.g. the right to repair although that's for physical goods).
newsclues 1y ago
If there is anything good in the DMCA those sections can be reimplemented in law. But we should not tolerate broken laws because they have some benefits, when we have the power to remove and replace bad laws with good ones.

osigurdson 1y ago

A simpler regulation would be to disclose at the time of purchase how much ad content that a given device that one is purchasing will display. That way if you want something cheap and are ok with an ad sponsored device, everything is fine. If you don't want ads, buy a competitor's product that doesn't have ads. If competition isn't broken this model should work fine.

Terr_ 1y ago
> A simpler regulation [is disclosing] how much ad content I disagree, it's much less simple in the long run. (A phenomenon I'm sure is painfully-familiar to a lot of software developers.) First, it's playing whack-a-mole with just one of many kinds of infringement on the user's ownership. It does nothing to protect against aggressive spying "telemetry", against forcing users to make an Acme Fridge Online Account to continue, or against standard/free features being "discontinued" and then introducing a suspiciously similar paid-subscription option. Second, even in that narrow "showing ads" aspect, there are too many dimensions to lock down by spec. For example, consider the difference between a system that shows X minutes of ads when idle which are instantly-dismissable, versus another system that shows fewer/shorter/smaller ads which are unskippable phases of normal operation. In contrast, freeing users to fight back--and to share what they've developed--encourages a democratized and counterbalancing force, which will naturally be strongly aligned to consumer interests regardless of yearly electoral changes.
- osigurdson 1y ago
  Maybe it can just be binary: zero ads or up to and including 100% ads.

xnx 1y ago

The anti-circumvention rule is great, just backwards. There should be penalties for companies that try to prevent their hardware from being modified.

pllbnk 1y ago

But then what's the point of buying a device like this in the first place? I agree with the sentiment, but I would only buy this device if I wanted to use Amazon's services. If I decided to customize it, I couldn't blame Amazon for refusing the service. Perhaps there could be a government-mandated requirement to distinguish between "buy" and "rent". If you get a device bundled with a service, then there should be a subscription fee you have to pay for it without the ability to outright "buy" it. That would make it very obvious to people whether they are buying something to own or merely renting it. My take is very simplistic here but I hope I managed to convey the concept.