Hmmm..my spin detector went off. As I understand the Grokster decision, it not outlaw P2P per se, but only applied because the advertising etc. of the software had encouraged copyright violations.

As I understand it, “the substantial non-infringing use” test of Sony still holds, and since P2P does have a non-infringing use (for example I use it to get and help distribute several distributions of Linux and BSD) so I can still use P2P.

This is really vintage PFF, putting a spin on legal decisons, to suit their perverted world view in which anything not liked by a few very large media companies is made illegal…

Ed point well taken but Solveig and you have different understanding of the word security.

She means security of a few large corporations from competition. FOSS does not implement that type of security…

This is all aided and abetted by the DMCA, which makes it illegal to circumvent DRM. The DMCA is what is taking away fair use rights, not DRM per se. Without the DMCA, cracking tools would be readily available for any DRM; with the DMCA, only legitimate consumers are inconvenienced, not the “pirates”.

This irritates the hell out of me, but it doesn’t really affect me, as I refuse to knowingly buy any product that has DRM.

I would postulate that the question of whether or not there exists a business model for content delivery over the web without DRM is irrelevant, if DRM and DCMA violate my First Amendment rights.

In others, First Amendment comes first, and if the business model of some media companies goes south because of my Frist amendment Rights, well that’s the price we pay for freedom.

Although I don’t believe content delivery free of DRM can’t make money (note Doug’s comments re You Tube) the business model will have to adapt to existiing in a free society. But that is what business is very good at doing–adapting…

Singleton calls for a “constructive” debate. A constructive debate would have to recognize the boundary that DRM/DCMA does NOT add value to the legitimate consumer, it should not give the DRM/DCMA crowd the right to trespass on your side of the fence, it deprives the legitimate user of fair use, and actually transfers liability to the legitimate user. By “liability” I mean the $$cost, maintenance, time, security, performance issues of keeping a personal computer operating.

In fact, security is enhanced by the user’s understanding of how the system works, just as aviation safety is enhanced by the pilot’s understanding of how the plane works.

I do not believe that we have a “acceptable” orientation for discussing the use of the DMCA and the implementation of DRM technologies. The current “incorrect” approach is to simply view DCMA/DRM as a means of the content owner to “protect” his/her intellectual content. I find this “incomplete’ approach to be highly disturbing. The discussion on DCMA/DRM seems to overlook the fact that the proDMCA/RM crowd asserts that they have a right to trespass onto your computer to “protect” themselves. Furthermore, your rights to control YOUR computer are being legislated away. As an example of this process Tim made a very good point in his paper “Circumventing Competition; The Perverse Consequences of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act” that corporate executive could have you thrown in jail if you “steal’ his content, but if the executive “steals” your content, you have to go through the slow and expensive civil court process. The power of the State should not be used to guarantee corporate profits. In summary the discussion above should not be soley on the “rights” of the content provider, but also balanced with a discussion on the “rights” of the unintended victims of this abusive legislation and abusive technology.

Addtional thoughts. I am not opposed to a company implementing DRM, ala the iPod (as long as the hardware is clearly identified as being “locked” to a specific vendor.) The Sony Rootkit debacle is an example of a content provider abusing its right to protect its content by making stealth changes to a computers operating system which also had the potential effect of crippling it, reducing its usability, and even disabling a competitor’s product from working on your commputer.

Even more additional thoughts, now that jazzed up. What happens to a user if they buy into venodr’s X DRM and the vendor goes out-of-busines??? The user who spent $$$ to aquire the content will be potentially left with worthless unusable inventory. Suppose we live long enough for the content to enter the public domain, how are we going to strip the DRM off the content so that it can be played on any device??? I’ve rambled too long.

If you don’t mind, I’d like to pursue the meatspace vs. cyberspace issue a little bit further. I think you just acknowledged that the DMCA doen’t do anything to prevent what I call cyberspace infringement. Which means that the argument for the DMCA must rest on its ability to deter meatspace infringement, correct?

If so, how is this any different from arguments over previous generations of copying technology? The recording industry wanted legal restrictions on tape recorders, VCRs, CD burners and MP3 players, too. In most cases, Congress and the courts concluded that it’s not worth banning new copying technologies in order to reduce piracy.

The DMCA is a ban on copying technologies too. I fail to see how it’s different from previous generations. Yes, the DMCA reduces piracy somewhat by making it more inconvenient for me to burn a copy of my DVD for my neighbor, in the same way that a ban on VCRs or CD-Rs would have reduced piracy in the 1980s and 1990s, respectively, by preventing me from making unauthorized copies of those media types. But the DMCA also makes it illegal for me to watch my DVD on my iPod or most Linux computers. It’s not clear to me why these activities are any less legitimate than time-shifting or making personal copies of CDs. Moreover, since

To the extent that we’re talking about meatspace infringement, this may be a hard problem, but it’s not a new problem. On the other hand, if we’re talking about cyberspace infringement, it’s definitely a new and hard problem, but it’s not a problem that the DMCA has any role in solving. Asking us to solve the P2P problem–a problem that you’ve acknowledged the DMCA doesn’t solve–doesn’t seem like a reasonable request.

I’m also extremely interested in details on my “breaches of professional ettiquette.”

Thanks.

If DRM is a good answer, and good business, why isn’t it more frequently applied? It appears to me that the market is speaking loud and clear.

I just don’t understand your squeamishness about getting the government involved as the primary mechanism of enforcement. Why don’t we start allowing local police forces to fine people under modest federal copyright laws the way we allow them to arrest illegal immigrants?

One could also point to firearms as a legitimate counterexample to your point: “doesn’t particularly matter what the purpose of DeCSS was; the effect of a legalized DeCSS was likely to be mischievous.” Firearms are frequently used by criminals. They’re also frequently used by law-abiding citizens. We punish people on their use, not for the weapon itself except in those “progressive” parts of the country whose murder rates approach Somalia, the Palestinian Authority, Southern Lebanon or Kosovo.

There seems to be general agreement here that DRM does have some effect (how much is uncertain) on curbing schoolyard or “meatspace” piracy, but more or less NO effect on professional priracy or P2P (or “cyberspace”) piracy. So, content industries by and large like DRM (and the DMCA) because they want to reduce schoolyard piracy. It’s always been a problem for them. The thing is, the DMCA was sold as a solution to a NEW problem (you know, that very….difficult enforcement problem), not a solution to the same-old schoolyard piracy problem. However, the DMCA is an utter failure at solving that new, still very….difficult problem. The content industry may appreciate the help, however minor, the DMCA provides in solving their old, old problem, but many other groups (consumer electronics manufacturers, consumers who like to exercise fair use, open-source developers) feel like the trade-off is not worth it, especially given the dishonesty with which the new law is being marketed.

I just don’t understand your squeamishness about getting the government involved as the primary mechanism of enforcement. Why don’t we start allowing local police forces to fine people under modest federal copyright laws the way we allow them to arrest illegal immigrants?

One could also point to firearms as a legitimate counterexample to your point: “doesn’t particularly matter what the purpose of DeCSS was; the effect of a legalized DeCSS was likely to be mischievous.” Firearms are frequently used by criminals. They’re also frequently used by law-abiding citizens. We punish people on their use, not for the weapon itself except in those “progressive” parts of the country whose murder rates approach Somalia, the Palestinian Authority, Southern Lebanon or Kosovo.