I’m not opposed to your views, but I think there is more flexibility in the DMCA that you do.

Finally, regarding substitution, (you talked about this in a previous comment, I just forgot to go over that point) one has to recognize that when it comes to artistic products, that argument shouldn’t be so simple. You can’t just say: “You’re free to buy somebody else’s music.” A song by BonJovi is not the same as a song by Paula Abdul, unlike computers where a graphics card by ATI is pretty damn close to a graphics card by NVIDIA. For artistic products, substitution cannot be invoked so simply. I think relying on substitution to justify the DMCA is admitting that the DMCA is also a brake to artistic creativity. The same thing the copyright laws are meant to protect and encourage.

My point is that if you buy a song with DRM, its you, not the government or the firm, preventing you from playing it on devices of your choice.

You raise some good points though…

The problem with anti-drm-circumvention laws is that if an innovator comes up with, say, an mp3 player that’s better… a person who has legally purchased a certain piece of music would be commiting a crime by using a different device. Such a law is then effectively a useless brake to innovation.

Putting songs onto the new MP3 player would not be a per se crime (and you know that:).

Also, if the new MP3 makers are truly innovative, they would have found out how to make their player interoperable with existing digital music DRM schemes, so that users CAN SWITCH to their player. And based on what I see on TLF, there is a market for such a new product.

“The anti-DRM campaign really reminds me of “rights inflation,” those who feel they ahve a right to tinker with another’s work, who feel like they’re losing their culture or freedom because innovators don’t do what they want- and all of this fits under some self-important delusion of a revolution or movement. And through all of this, I hear little if no appreciation for companies that bring the products/services in question to market.”

The major point I see here is not that people want innovators to do something more, it’s that new legislation makes using new innovation legally impossible.

Copyright laws have always been there to ensure that artists would be paid for their work. Once the artist has been paid, then what the user does with the product for personal consumption should be irrelevant to the copyright holder. The problem with anti-drm-circumvention laws is that if an innovator comes up with, say, an mp3 player that’s better, more convenient or just prettier than an ipod, a person who has legally purchased a certain piece of music would be commiting a crime by using a different device. Such a law is then effectively a useless brake to innovation. The real crime is in distributing the music without paying money to the copyright holder. Circumventing a drm measure should not constitute a crime. Introducing laws such as the DMCA accomplish nothing. There are two types of people who circumvent DRMs. Those who then distribute it illegaly (and we already have a reason to prosecute these people) and those who circumvent drm to enjoy legally purchased music more conveniently. I don’t see how criminalizing the second category accomplishes anything. Bear in mind that in a DMCA-free world, companies are still free to introduce DRM schemes. I just don’t think we should criminalize people who circumvent such schemes to get a better experience from the product they bought.

And that’s on top of having extended the term of copyright far beyond what I would consider a reasonnable length. But I think that’s a different debate.

The Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 reduced our right to use content by extending the copyright period. This legislation, from what I have informally heard, was done at the behest of Disney.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) criminalized normal practices in the dissemination of content. Again this legislation was passed to appease the corporate community.

If one has increasingly less rights as a result of new legislation, it is incredulously how one can claim “rights inflation”.

In Europe, even before iPods there was a concern about American cultural domination, and much of that concern has been transfered to an awareness of digital rights, and the consequences of overly strong IP policies.

I travel to Poland each summer (since 1998), and was amazed at how many were keyed into these and other issues, such as software patents.

In Europe, even before iPods there was a concern about American cultural domination, and much of that concern has been transfered to an awareness of digital rights, and the consequences of overly strong IP policies.

I travel to Poland each summer (since 1998), and was amazed at how many were keyed into these and other issues, such as software patents.

The anti-DRM campaign really reminds me of “rights inflation,” those who feel they ahve a right to tinker with another’s work, who feel like they’re losing their culture or freedom because innovators don’t do what they want- and all of this fits under some self-important delusion of a revolution or movement. And through all of this, I hear little if no appreciation for companies that bring the products/services in question to market.

I’d consider more seriously discourse on unilateral changes to EULAs, or reverse engineering policy rather these conversations that tacitly begin with “what about me.”

The kid sounds like a nutcase. Nobody is forcing him to do anything. He voluntarily bought songs whose use privileges he knew would be limited, and now he’s complaining. If he’s that big on use freedoms, he should just switch music services.