[LINK] What's Wrong with Copy Protection
Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:51:28 +1100 (EST)
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Bruce Arnold wrote:
> >A cogent article by the EFF's John Gilmore on the tyranny of scarcity
> >and its impact on our society wrestling with media copyright and
> >duplication technology.
> Gadfly John Gilmore asks "Being devil's advocate for a moment, why should
> self-interested companies be permitted to shift the balance of fundamental
> liberties, risking free expression, free markets, scientific progress,
> consumer rights, societal stability, and the end of physical and
> informational want? Because somebody might be able to steal a song? That
> seems a rather flimsy excuse"
> The obvious, equally polemical response, is 'why should self-interested
> consumers be permitted to shift the balance of fundamental liberties,
> risking free expression, free markets, scientific progress, consumer
> rights, societal stability, and the end of physical and informational want?
> Because somebody might want them to pay for a song? That seems a rather
> flimsy excuse'.
Except that such a response would be wrong: John is arguing for a
continuation of the _status quo_ - where our rights to create personal
copies, exercise fair use rights, etc are not limited by artificial
You seem to be making the common mistake that critics of DRM simply want
to be able to copy and distribute copyright media for free.
> If he acknowledged that no-one forces you to buy that Madonna CD or rent
> the video.
No, but when we do it would be nice to be able to make a personal copy
for our car MP3 player - something which is explicitly allowed now, but
would be impossible in a DRM world.
| ``We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on | Damien Miller -
| a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the | <firstname.lastname@example.org>
| works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, /
| we know this is not true.'' - Robert Wilensky UCB / http://www.mindrot.org