[LINK] Digital useright
Michael Sims
jellicle@inch.com
Sun, 4 Mar 2001 12:22:36 -0500
I see that the digital useright - not 'copyright' - debate has hit Link,
and the same old canards are being trotted out to defend it.
A) "Other countries are doing it." A very, very, common tactic. If other
countries jumped off the bridge, would Australia jump too? If legislation
was introduced requiring Australian women to never leave their homes
except veiled and in the company of a male relative, would defenders jump
up and say, "But Afghanistan is doing it! We should too!"? This is an
incredibly hollow argument, even were the premise true - and it's not,
everyone else is not, in fact doing it (only a few countries have these
circumvention bans in effect).
B) "We're just trying to target pirates." Au contraire. The RIAA in the
United States has admitted that the DMCA is intended SOLELY to target end
users - the people reading this email message right now. Mass duplication
of music CDs or any other media is not an offense under anti-circumvention
laws! Mass duplication is accomplished by pressing an entire CD at once,
an exact duplicate of a commercial CD, and so if you started with an
encrypted work that could be decrypted by a special player you get a
copied encrypted work that can be decrypted by a special player - and the
player can't tell the difference. There is no need to decrypt encrypted
works in order to committ large-scale copyright infringement - DMCA-like
laws don't affect such actions at all. DMCA-like laws are intended for
use against the home consumer. That is their only purpose and reason for
existence.
C) "Nobody objects except the lunatic fringe." On the contrary. Hundreds
of organizations have opposed the U.S. DMCA, which is now being litigated
in the U.S., ranging from librarians to academics to cryptographers to
computer science professors to civil liberties groups to journalists.
Follow the links in this story -
http://slashdot.org/yro/01/01/31/185228.shtml
- to read some of the briefs submitted in the court case opposing the
DMCA. This is, to put lightly, not a lunatic fringe.
D) "As long as I don't copy anything, this doesn't affect me." Not so.
DMCA-like laws are not about copying. Their purpose is to give copyright
holders the ability to control what end-users DO with lawfully obtained
copyrighted works. While no one can prevent you from reading a paper book
while standing on your head, if your digital book contains a sensor that
knows when the book is upside down and disallows reading in such a
circumstance, it will be illegal under DMCA-like laws to turn off that
sensor and allow you to read the book upside down. This example sounds
silly. But this example generalizes to any situation where computer code
can control the use of a copyrighted work - if you break that code to
allow yourself to use the work in a different way - even if you never make
a copy of the protected item, just USE it differently - you're breaking
the new law. And there are so many situations where code can be
implemented to control usage that the mind boggles. You already have
several examples: DVDs that are region-limited, DVDs where you can't
forward past the advertisements, Microsoft software that can only ever be
installed on one computer - even if you remove it from one machine, you
can never install it on another. There will be many, many more. None of
these are beneficial to the end-user of copyrighted works, only to
copyright holders.
I hope this adds a bit to the copyright debate. Australia's citizen and
consumer groups may be ignoring the impact of the law so far - perhaps
they didn't realize, perhaps they tried and failed, whatever. But what
people are about to find is that a lot of the activities you do every day
- none of them described by the word "copying" - are or will soon be in
violation of the law. At that point, you'll have to decide whether to
fight for your right to use lawfully purchased copyrighted works in the
manner of your choosing, or just knuckle under.
--
Michael Sims