Comments on: The DMCA and Censorship http://techliberation.com/2007/06/21/the-dmca-and-censorship/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:51:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Damian Yerrick http://techliberation.com/2007/06/21/the-dmca-and-censorship/comment-page-1/#comment-45497 Damian Yerrick Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:58:53 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/21/the-dmca-and-censorship/#comment-45497 <blockquote>the DMCA only restricts companies from cracking the codes if those cracks are for the specific purpose of copyright infringement.</blockquote> <p><br>Citation please. I seem to remember reading in <i>Universal v. Reimerdes</i> that defenses to copyright infringement are no defense to circumvention.</p> the DMCA only restricts companies from cracking the codes if those cracks are for the specific purpose of copyright infringement.


Citation please. I seem to remember reading in Universal v. Reimerdes that defenses to copyright infringement are no defense to circumvention.

]]> By: Damian Yerrick http://techliberation.com/2007/06/21/the-dmca-and-censorship/comment-page-1/#comment-38696 Damian Yerrick Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:58:53 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/21/the-dmca-and-censorship/#comment-38696 <blockquote>the DMCA only restricts companies from cracking the codes if those cracks are for the specific purpose of copyright infringement.</blockquote> <p>Citation please. I seem to remember reading in <i>Universal v. Reimerdes</i> that defenses to copyright infringement are no defense to circumvention.</p> the DMCA only restricts companies from cracking the codes if those cracks are for the specific purpose of copyright infringement.

Citation please. I seem to remember reading in Universal v. Reimerdes that defenses to copyright infringement are no defense to circumvention.

]]> By: Dan http://techliberation.com/2007/06/21/the-dmca-and-censorship/comment-page-1/#comment-45496 Dan Sat, 30 Jun 2007 23:25:14 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/21/the-dmca-and-censorship/#comment-45496 <p>Unfortunately for the console companies, the DMCA only restricts companies from cracking the codes if those cracks are for the specific purpose of copyright infringement. A game company still retains the right to crack those codes to allow their game to play normally because no copyright infringement will occur.</p> Unfortunately for the console companies, the DMCA only restricts companies from cracking the codes if those cracks are for the specific purpose of copyright infringement. A game company still retains the right to crack those codes to allow their game to play normally because no copyright infringement will occur.

]]> By: Dan http://techliberation.com/2007/06/21/the-dmca-and-censorship/comment-page-1/#comment-38695 Dan Sat, 30 Jun 2007 22:25:14 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/21/the-dmca-and-censorship/#comment-38695 <p>Unfortunately for the console companies, the DMCA only restricts companies from cracking the codes if those cracks are for the specific purpose of copyright infringement. A game company still retains the right to crack those codes to allow their game to play normally because no copyright infringement will occur.</p> Unfortunately for the console companies, the DMCA only restricts companies from cracking the codes if those cracks are for the specific purpose of copyright infringement. A game company still retains the right to crack those codes to allow their game to play normally because no copyright infringement will occur.

]]> By: Don Marti http://techliberation.com/2007/06/21/the-dmca-and-censorship/comment-page-1/#comment-45495 Don Marti Fri, 22 Jun 2007 21:52:29 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/21/the-dmca-and-censorship/#comment-45495 <p>Brian, there is a good business model reason for this. Sell the console at a loss, but charge game publishers to sign the games. The number one thing to realize about DRM/DMCA is that, at least in think tank white papers, it facilitates all kinds of absolutely wonderful-sounding business ideas. Give someone a free printer, charge for DRM-restricted cartridges, sell an exploding copy of a movie, whatever.</p> Brian, there is a good business model reason for this. Sell the console at a loss, but charge game publishers to sign the games. The number one thing to realize about DRM/DMCA is that, at least in think tank white papers, it facilitates all kinds of absolutely wonderful-sounding business ideas. Give someone a free printer, charge for DRM-restricted cartridges, sell an exploding copy of a movie, whatever.

]]> By: Don Marti http://techliberation.com/2007/06/21/the-dmca-and-censorship/comment-page-1/#comment-38694 Don Marti Fri, 22 Jun 2007 20:52:29 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/21/the-dmca-and-censorship/#comment-38694 <p>Brian, there is a good business model reason for this. Sell the console at a loss, but charge game publishers to sign the games. The number one thing to realize about DRM/DMCA is that, at least in think tank white papers, it facilitates all kinds of absolutely wonderful-sounding business ideas. Give someone a free printer, charge for DRM-restricted cartridges, sell an exploding copy of a movie, whatever.</p> Brian, there is a good business model reason for this. Sell the console at a loss, but charge game publishers to sign the games. The number one thing to realize about DRM/DMCA is that, at least in think tank white papers, it facilitates all kinds of absolutely wonderful-sounding business ideas. Give someone a free printer, charge for DRM-restricted cartridges, sell an exploding copy of a movie, whatever.

]]> By: Brian Moore http://techliberation.com/2007/06/21/the-dmca-and-censorship/comment-page-1/#comment-45494 Brian Moore Fri, 22 Jun 2007 20:46:55 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/21/the-dmca-and-censorship/#comment-45494 <p>What I don't get is why console mfg wants to restrict the functionality of its platform. Sure, you can say "we don't support this" and just have it "work" anyway, just like a PC.<br><br>Dell and Gateway don't care when someone releases a controversial computer game, because they know that no one is going to blame them. Use whatever license/contract computers have.</p> What I don’t get is why console mfg wants to restrict the functionality of its platform. Sure, you can say “we don’t support this” and just have it “work” anyway, just like a PC.

Dell and Gateway don’t care when someone releases a controversial computer game, because they know that no one is going to blame them. Use whatever license/contract computers have.

]]> By: Brian Moore http://techliberation.com/2007/06/21/the-dmca-and-censorship/comment-page-1/#comment-38693 Brian Moore Fri, 22 Jun 2007 19:46:55 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/21/the-dmca-and-censorship/#comment-38693 <p>What I don't get is why console mfg wants to restrict the functionality of its platform. Sure, you can say "we don't support this" and just have it "work" anyway, just like a PC.</p> <p>Dell and Gateway don't care when someone releases a controversial computer game, because they know that no one is going to blame them. Use whatever license/contract computers have.</p> What I don’t get is why console mfg wants to restrict the functionality of its platform. Sure, you can say “we don’t support this” and just have it “work” anyway, just like a PC.

Dell and Gateway don’t care when someone releases a controversial computer game, because they know that no one is going to blame them. Use whatever license/contract computers have.

]]> By: Steve R. http://techliberation.com/2007/06/21/the-dmca-and-censorship/comment-page-1/#comment-45493 Steve R. Fri, 22 Jun 2007 13:51:20 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/21/the-dmca-and-censorship/#comment-45493 <p>I don't think this is really a free speech issue. I fully agree that it is not censorship for the <i>Wall Street Journal</i> not to publish a letter to the editor. However, in this situation, the issue raised relates to how much control a hardware manufacturer should have after the product is sold to the consumer. I would advocate that the manufacturer upon the sale of the product cedes virtually all control to the consumer. This means that third parties should have a right to be able to produce products that work the hardware device in question.<br><br>To use the automobile analogy, computer technology now allows Ford to design a car that would <i>fail</i> to operate if it detected a non-authorized Ford part. Clearly this goes beyond the realm of reason.<br><br>PS: One of the ploys to deprive the consumer of rights is that the product is <i>"licensed"</i> not <i>"sold"</i>. I don't believe this ludicrous slight-of-hand has any validity. Hopefully the courts will see through this absurdity.</p> I don’t think this is really a free speech issue. I fully agree that it is not censorship for the Wall Street Journal not to publish a letter to the editor. However, in this situation, the issue raised relates to how much control a hardware manufacturer should have after the product is sold to the consumer. I would advocate that the manufacturer upon the sale of the product cedes virtually all control to the consumer. This means that third parties should have a right to be able to produce products that work the hardware device in question.

To use the automobile analogy, computer technology now allows Ford to design a car that would fail to operate if it detected a non-authorized Ford part. Clearly this goes beyond the realm of reason.

PS: One of the ploys to deprive the consumer of rights is that the product is “licensed” not “sold”. I don’t believe this ludicrous slight-of-hand has any validity. Hopefully the courts will see through this absurdity.

]]> By: Steve R. http://techliberation.com/2007/06/21/the-dmca-and-censorship/comment-page-1/#comment-38692 Steve R. Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:51:20 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/21/the-dmca-and-censorship/#comment-38692 <p>I don't think this is really a free speech issue. I fully agree that it is not censorship for the <i>Wall Street Journal</i> not to publish a letter to the editor. However, in this situation, the issue raised relates to how much control a hardware manufacturer should have after the product is sold to the consumer. I would advocate that the manufacturer upon the sale of the product cedes virtually all control to the consumer. This means that third parties should have a right to be able to produce products that work the hardware device in question.</p> <p>To use the automobile analogy, computer technology now allows Ford to design a car that would <i>fail</i> to operate if it detected a non-authorized Ford part. Clearly this goes beyond the realm of reason.</p> <p>PS: One of the ploys to deprive the consumer of rights is that the product is <i>"licensed"</i> not <i>"sold"</i>. I don't believe this ludicrous slight-of-hand has any validity. Hopefully the courts will see through this absurdity.</p> I don’t think this is really a free speech issue. I fully agree that it is not censorship for the Wall Street Journal not to publish a letter to the editor. However, in this situation, the issue raised relates to how much control a hardware manufacturer should have after the product is sold to the consumer. I would advocate that the manufacturer upon the sale of the product cedes virtually all control to the consumer. This means that third parties should have a right to be able to produce products that work the hardware device in question.

To use the automobile analogy, computer technology now allows Ford to design a car that would fail to operate if it detected a non-authorized Ford part. Clearly this goes beyond the realm of reason.

PS: One of the ploys to deprive the consumer of rights is that the product is “licensed” not “sold”. I don’t believe this ludicrous slight-of-hand has any validity. Hopefully the courts will see through this absurdity.

]]>