[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Postage Meters and the "Right to Tinker"
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Postage Meters and the "Right to Tinker"
- From: mickey <mickeym(at)mindspring.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 17:24:49 -0500
- References: <5763755.1042493574209.JavaMail.root@scippl1>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020204
>>I got the authority when I got ownership ... which
>>they gave me as a gift.
>Not according to the copyright holder. Certainly not when you consider
>the DMCA. I would contend that a more reasonable, balanced view of
>copyrights would respect a "keyware" model at least ethically. Much of
>the most useful non-mainstream software in terms of shareware, nagware,
>crippleware, demoware, and free-for-student-ware have been predominantly
>keyware based. Just because I have legal right to a copy of a keyware work
>(downloaded from Winzip.com legally), doesn't give me an ethical (nor
>legal) right to crack the software because I don't like its license nagging.
>I give up. Keyware should be protected exactly to the extent use controls
>(post sale) like CSS shouldn't. One deals with making copies with or w/out
>the copyright holders permission and to there financial detriment, the other
>enforces cartel power across unrelated industries for no other reason than
>the bullying power of the cartel
>If we can't agree that "keyware" TPM's should have legal
>protection (and do AFAICT) then we and the content industry are going
>to be at a "pro-life"/"pro-choice" level loggerhead (lagerhead?) and
>progress and the public are ill served. We can yell "great taste/less
>filling" across the void (while grabbing all the free swag we can), or
>we can work constructively and consistently.
I agree that the law, as written, now protects keyware. I don't agree
that it should, however, for the same reason that I don't think that it
should protect satellite and OTA broadcasts: It creates an expectation
of privacy when there is none.
It does so by requiring persons "skilled in the art" to avert their
eyes/ears to an otherwise obvious (to them) transmission.
Scrambling a signal of any kind does nothing to hide it. Any encoding
and transmission method is already difficult. To most persons, vinyl
LP's are scrambled. The same goes for floppy disks, cd's, and dvd's. Any
encryption, flag, or mark is just another part of the format. You can't
protect data with more data.
>To me the protection of keyware is a narrowly-defined "least restrictive means"
>1A impact that benefits the public interest. If you would rather that only
>big companies that can by shelfspace and Microwarehouse pages sell software,
>go ahead and promote the concept that keyware is ethical to crack. Keyware
>allows a network/web/multilevel P2P distribution channel that is a strong
>decentralizing and disintermediating force.
I agree that it's a great distribution model. I just have difficulty
supporting the "don't look / don't tell" method having the force of law.