Re: [dvd-discuss] Postage Meters and the "Right to Tinker"

[Jolley <tjolley(at)swbell.net>]

johnzu@ia.nsc.com wrote:
> 
> >I got the authority when I got ownership ... which
> >they gave me as a gift.

Owning the physical media containing a copyrighted work made by or
under the authority of the copyright holder and legally obtained
should be all that is needed to make use of the work.  The key is
nothing more than a second product the copyright holder sells
to allow easy access to (usage of) the work.

> 
> 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.

I don't think it should be a copyright view.  If anything, it should be
a commerce view.  As I remember the legislative history of the DMCA
the congress was concerned about "black boxes".  The type of boxes
specifically designed to intercept a satellite or cable system
transmission and remove the encryption from the work.  Clearly the
person using the "black box" does not have a legal physical copy of
the work nor an agreement with the provider to intercept and use the
work.  The purpose of the DMCA is to punish those that trafficked in
black boxes - real physical hardware designed for one purpose.

>  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.

How about cracking it for research purposes?  For interoperablity?
Because it was keyed to a piece of hardware on my machine that I
replaced?

> 
> 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.

I can't distinguish the difference between keyware and CSS in their
purpose.  If the cartel were broken up would you change your mind about
CSS?

> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> .002