Comments on: Just a Number

By: tom

tom — Mon, 07 May 2007 18:23:36 +0000

I would argue that most of the current distribution of the key in question is NOT for circumvention purposes, but rather as a statement of opinion about such distribution. I.e., it's political speech.

That's an interesting point, Jim. I'm inclined to agree, and am very curious what a court would say about it.

By: tom

tom — Mon, 07 May 2007 17:23:36 +0000

That's an interesting point, Jim. I'm inclined to agree, and am very curious what a court would say about it.

By: eee_eff

eee_eff — Sat, 05 May 2007 19:05:06 +0000

http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com/2007/05/05/d...

By: enigma_foundry

enigma_foundry — Sat, 05 May 2007 18:05:06 +0000

http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com/2007/05/05/dcma-use-it-and-you-will-lose-it/

By: Doug Lay

Doug Lay — Sat, 05 May 2007 13:00:29 +0000

I wonder if the Supreme Court’s decision earlier this week in Microsoft vs AT&T; may make a difference here. The court, in a 7-1 decison, ruled that a software code cannot by itself be a component of a patented invention, since the code itself is only a blueprint providing instructions for execution by a physical machine. Hmmmmmm…software is NOT a component by order of the Supreme Court. Yet the law forbids the distribution or posession of a component of a circumvention device. Hmmmmm…..

By: Doug Lay

Doug Lay — Sat, 05 May 2007 12:00:29 +0000

I wonder if the Supreme Court’s decision earlier this week in Microsoft vs AT&T may make a difference here. The court, in a 7-1 decison, ruled that a software code cannot by itself be a component of a patented invention, since the code itself is only a blueprint providing instructions for execution by a physical machine. Hmmmmmm…software is NOT a component by order of the Supreme Court. Yet the law forbids the distribution or posession of a component of a circumvention device. Hmmmmm…..

By: Jim Lippard

Jim Lippard — Fri, 04 May 2007 22:53:44 +0000

"You're still perfectly welcome to use those numbers for other purposes. You just aren't allowed to redistribute them for a specific purpose that victimizes the AACS LA."

I would argue that most of the current distribution of the key in question is NOT for circumvention purposes, but rather as a statement of opinion about such distribution. I.e., it's political speech.

By: Luis Villa

Luis Villa — Fri, 04 May 2007 22:49:21 +0000

But the whole point of Harper, Tim, is that it isn’t the length that matters, it is the substance of it. Harper, in essence, says ’300 words or 30,000 words or 3 words, if it guts the commercial value of the work, it has legal significance which the court must attend to.’[1] Here we’re 10 times less raw information than Harper, but the economic and political significance of the number is vastly larger. To pretend otherwise- really, to pretend that the length has any relevance at all- is to be in denial about what we’re really talking about.

Again, this is not to say that I approve, but again, the length and the fact that this is a number, and not ‘open sesame’ or whatever other passphrase one wants to use, is really irrelevant in anything other than an emotional/irrational sense. (Wars have been fought and millions have died over the emotional and irrational, so that is fine do discuss too — in fact I think that is mostly what Ed is talking about — but again, lets not get things confused.)

[1] Seth, I use ‘legal significance’ and not infringement for your benefit

By: Crosbie Fitch

Crosbie Fitch — Fri, 04 May 2007 22:20:29 +0000

Seth, I've observed that confusion too. I think it helps demonstrate that copyright and DMCA constitute sophistry in the subconscious minds of the general public.

You buy something, it's yours.

You have a device that let's you copy it, you can.

Someone tells you the magic number that fixes the otherwise broken copy function on your device, why not use it? Why not tell it to your friends?

It's your property, your device, your option to copy...

"No, no! You can't do that. We all agreed three centuries ago that we wouldn't use the copy function on our devices."

"Eh?"

By: Jim Lippard

Jim Lippard — Fri, 04 May 2007 21:53:44 +0000

"You're still perfectly welcome to use those numbers for other purposes. You just aren't allowed to redistribute them for a specific purpose that victimizes the AACS LA."

I would argue that most of the current distribution of the key in question is NOT for circumvention purposes, but rather as a statement of opinion about such distribution. I.e., it's political speech.

By: Luis Villa

Luis Villa — Fri, 04 May 2007 21:49:21 +0000

Again, this is not to say that I approve, but again, the length and the fact that this is a number, and not ‘open sesame’ or whatever other passphrase one wants to use, is really irrelevant in anything other than an emotional/irrational sense. (Wars have been fought and millions have died over the emotional and irrational, so that is fine do discuss too — in fact I think that is mostly what Ed is talking about — but again, lets not get things confused.)

[1] Seth, I use ‘legal significance’ and not infringement for your benefit

By: Crosbie Fitch

Crosbie Fitch — Fri, 04 May 2007 21:20:29 +0000

Seth, I've observed that confusion too. I think it helps demonstrate that copyright and DMCA constitute sophistry in the subconscious minds of the general public.

You buy something, it's yours.

You have a device that let's you copy it, you can.

Someone tells you the magic number that fixes the otherwise broken copy function on your device, why not use it? Why not tell it to your friends?

It's your property, your device, your option to copy...

"No, no! You can't do that. We all agreed three centuries ago that we wouldn't use the copy function on our devices."

"Eh?"

By: tom

tom — Fri, 04 May 2007 15:59:42 +0000

Thanks for the link, Tim, and the thoughtful commentary. I'm not sure I agree with all of it, though.

First, I worry about any kind of length-based criteria for granting copyright. Are visual works going to be treated as bitmaps or vector art? If the latter, some minimalist artists are going to be in trouble. Will poets start worrying about increasing the average entropy of their stanzas?

Second, I think this quote gets at the root of the problem with Felten's argument:

...asserting ownership of a 16-byte number is still dramatically different than asserting ownership over a thousand-byte (text), million-byte (music), or billion-byte (movies) number.

I think the confusion comes from the implication that the AACS LA is asserting ownership -- it isn't. You're still perfectly welcome to use those numbers for other purposes. You just aren't allowed to redistribute them for a specific purpose that victimizes the AACS LA. The analogy I drew in Felten's comments is to a neighborhood association asking a store to restrict the sale of spray paint to minors. It's not asserting ownership over the paint, just restricting its distribution for a particular use.

With that said, I think that the idea of suppressing information because of what could be done with it is inherently problematic, and that the DMCA is bad policy. But I don't think the number-ownership argument makes a lot of sense.

By: Seth Finkelstein

Seth Finkelstein — Fri, 04 May 2007 15:27:56 +0000

Folks, it's not about infringement. It's about circumvention. Your intuitions, the sense of what's "fair use" for infringement, DO NOT APPLY to the all-new completely-different offense which is circumvention.

I see this confusion coming up over and over in the blog reactions.

By: tom

tom — Fri, 04 May 2007 14:59:42 +0000

Thanks for the link, Tim, and the thoughtful commentary. I'm not sure I agree with all of it, though.

First, I worry about any kind of length-based criteria for granting copyright. Are visual works going to be treated as bitmaps or vector art? If the latter, some minimalist artists are going to be in trouble. Will poets start worrying about increasing the average entropy of their stanzas?

Second, I think this quote gets at the root of the problem with Felten's argument:

...asserting ownership of a 16-byte number is still dramatically different than asserting ownership over a thousand-byte (text), million-byte (music), or billion-byte (movies) number.

I think the confusion comes from the implication that the AACS LA is asserting ownership -- it isn't. You're still perfectly welcome to use those numbers for other purposes. You just aren't allowed to redistribute them for a specific purpose that victimizes the AACS LA. The analogy I drew in Felten's comments is to a neighborhood association asking a store to restrict the sale of spray paint to minors. It's not asserting ownership over the paint, just restricting its distribution for a particular use.

With that said, I think that the idea of suppressing information because of what could be done with it is inherently problematic, and that the DMCA is bad policy. But I don't think the number-ownership argument makes a lot of sense.

By: Seth Finkelstein

Seth Finkelstein — Fri, 04 May 2007 14:27:56 +0000

I see this confusion coming up over and over in the blog reactions.

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Fri, 04 May 2007 14:27:08 +0000

Luis, I was actually going to cite Harper, but decided the post was long enough already. The text at issue in that case was about 300 words long, or about 1000 bytes. I think you'd be extremely hard-pressed to find a case where someone excerpted a 16-character string and it wasn't fair use.

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Fri, 04 May 2007 13:27:08 +0000

By: Luis Villa

Luis Villa — Fri, 04 May 2007 12:18:56 +0000

all else being equal
But this is exactly the exception that proves the rule. Look up Harper and Row v. The Nation

I think this civil disobedience is in the same vein as MLK Jr’s.

I think MLK is rolling in his grave at the mere thought of that.

By: Luis Villa

Luis Villa — Fri, 04 May 2007 11:18:56 +0000

all else being equal But this is exactly the exception that proves the rule. Look up Harper and Row v. The Nation

I think this civil disobedience is in the same vein as MLK Jr’s.

I think MLK is rolling in his grave at the mere thought of that.

By: kdonovan11

kdonovan11 — Fri, 04 May 2007 03:07:20 +0000

I think this civil disobedience is in the same vein as MLK Jr's. A digital march on Washington:

http://www.copyrightings.com/2007/05/digital-ma...

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Fri, 04 May 2007 02:30:54 +0000

Well, I’m not proposing that we have a constitutional amendment protecting the right to transmit any number smaller than 32 bytes. I just meant it as a rough heuristic for thinking about situations in which the law is controlling the distribution of information. It certainly works in copyright: all else being equal, shorter excerpts are more likely to constitute fair use than longer ones.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Fri, 04 May 2007 02:07:20 +0000

I think this civil disobedience is in the same vein as MLK Jr’s. A digital march on Washington:

http://www.copyrightings.com/2007/05/digital-march-on-washington.html

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Fri, 04 May 2007 01:30:54 +0000

By: Luis Villa

Luis Villa — Fri, 04 May 2007 01:11:42 +0000

Do they really, though? If that’s your criteria, they’ll just make the key longer. The issue really ought to turn on the deeper question of what the information signifies (control over the output of an entire industry, and control of the things owned and paid for by individuals) rather than the length or arbitrariness or number-ness of the number. But it seems neither side is going to get to the more important issues any time soon.

By: Luis Villa

Luis Villa — Fri, 04 May 2007 00:11:42 +0000