Slashdot Mirror
Copy Protection a Crime Against Humanity
Trevalyx writes "An article over at Wired looks into the relation between copy protection and the reality of a rational amount of 'wiggle room' that is typically provided by the legal system. It's a topic covered often on Slashdot, but it's still a good read. Should be accompanied by a visit to the Electronic Frontier Foundation for your Daily Dose of Defending Digital Freedom." The article does a good job of giving examples of legal leeway that's granted every day.
Copy Protection Is a Crime
...against humanity. Society is based on bending the rules.
By David Weinberger
Digital rights management sounds unobjectionable on paper: Consumers purchase certain rights to use creative works and are prevented from violating those rights. Who could balk at that except the pirates? Fair is fair, right? Well, no.
In reality, our legal system usually leaves us wiggle room. What's fair in one case won't be in another - and only human judgment can discern the difference. As we write the rules of use into software and hardware, we are also rewriting the rules we live by as a society, without anyone first bothering to ask if that's OK.
The problem starts with the fact that digital content can be copied - perfectly - from one machine to another. This has led the recording and movie industries to push for digital rights management schemes. Buy a one-time right to play the latest hit song or movie, and DRM could prevent you from playing it twice.
Of course, to exercise such exquisite control over content, DRM requires deep changes to all parts of the equation - the hardware, the operating system, and the content itself. Sure enough, some in Congress recently pushed the FCC to add a "broadcast flag" to content which digital hardware would be required to honor. DRM is barreling down the pike.
The usual criticism is that the scheme gives too much power to copyright holders. But there's a deeper problem: Perfect enforcement of rules is by its nature unfair. For contrast, consider how imperfectly rules are applied in the real world.
If your lease stipulates that you can't paint without explicit permission from your landlord, you will nevertheless patch up the scratches made by your yappy little dog on the bottom of the front door. If the high-priced industry analyst's report warns you on every page against duplicating, you'll still hand out at your weekly sales meeting copies of a page with a relevant chart. You'd snicker at the very suggestion of doing otherwise.
But why? The analyst report is stamped 'DO NOT PHOTOCOPY', and the bit in your lease about not painting really couldn't be any clearer. We chuckle because we all understand that before the law there's leeway - the true bedrock of human relationships. Sure, we rely on rules to decide the hard cases, but the rest of the time we cut one another a whole lot of slack. We have to. That's the only way we humans can manage to share a world. Otherwise, we'd be at one another's throats all the time - or, more exactly, our lawyers would be at each other's throats.
Yet we're on the verge of instituting digital rights management. What do computers do best? Obey rules. What do they do worst? Allow latitude. Why? Because computers don't know when to look the other way.
We're screwed. Not because we MP3 cowboys and cowgirls will not have to pay for content we've been "stealing." No, we're screwed because we're undercutting the basis of our shared intellectual and creative lives. For us to talk, argue, try out ideas, tear down and build up thoughts, assimilate and appropriate concepts - heck, just to be together in public - we have to grant all sorts of leeway. That's how ideas breed, how cultures get built. If any public space needs plenty of light, air, and room to play, it's the marketplace of ideas.
There are times when rules need to be imposed within that marketplace, whether they're international laws against bootleg CDs or the right of someone to sue for libel. But the fact that sometimes we resort to rules shouldn't lead us to think that they are the norm. In fact, leeway is the default and rules are the exception.
Fairness means knowing when to make exceptions. After all, applying rules equally is easy. Any bureaucrat can do it. It's far harder to know when to bend or even ignore the rules. That requires being sensitive to individual needs, understanding the larger context, balancing competing values, and forgiving transgressions when appropriate.
Here's a thought. All the IP laws are a form of market regulation. Businesses are all "regulation is bad". So, why don't we get rid of copyright, trademarks and patents just so big business can have the totally unregulated market they so desire?
Only us geeks care about being able to copy DVDs. But remember, consumers *did* reject DivX.
Most 'major' religions require tithing, which may be the real reason behind the weekly meets, not so much the brain rinsing.
Your dis'ing o' daily doses o' er'wise self-evident truths overlooks the fact that not everyone has learned them yet, thus the need for constant comment therein.
What cloaked agenda lurks in the mind of the man with such missive. Pray said agenda be his, and his alone, for if it be not of this world, nor his soul, the learning may be the end.
(a) Murder
(b) Extermination
(c) Enslavement
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law
(f) Torture
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons
(j) The crime of apartheid
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
None of these really seem to fit the RIAA trying to stop me copying Metallica CDs.
Yeah, but said protection ONLY deters the extremely casual copiers. Basically all you need to do is copy the actual files on the disk, and head to innumerable websites, and download the safedisc/securom/cdilla/whatever free executable and you're home free. The executable is effectively "unwrapped" and instead of checking to see if certain areas of the disc are corrupt or whatever, it just plays. Safedisc and Securom are a joke. Vice City was on the net 2 days before it's PC release, it "uses" safedisc. Rise of Nations was out 3 WEEKS before release. It uses Securom I believe.
Only the very lazy or the very uneducated can't copy modern titles.
And yes, when a patch is released you can't upgrade right away, but within a few days (or hours in the case of Championship Manager 4 recently), the crack is out and on the net, and it's business as usual.
Lensloc was a better protection than these...
Oh and remember Macrovision? VHS has also had DRM for years and years, it was just much less sophisticated. Still quite difficult to bypass though.
Erm... It can be bypassed by simply running the signal through an old Betamax VCR. I know, I've done it, and have the pay per views on tape to prove it:) I did know why it worked, but I forget now, but basically the way Beta did something (signal gain?) was done differently to VHS, ergo the Macrovision signal goes into the Betamax player and it goes "Macrovision? What Macrovision?" and filters it out so you just good old fashioned un-munged signal coming out.
You can also get around it simply using the coaxial route as well. I have many tapes I backed up with Macrovision. Basically run it via coaxial and any flickering is barely noticeable (and I've done this on MANY VCR's).
Their actions, intended to preserve their monopoly power and dying business model, instead actually hurt the artists by encouraging people to use alternative, illegal sources of distribution.
The recording industry has been "dying" since the start of their price fixing. However, it is important to note that the actual music nor the quality of the music has not been dieing, but only the actual value of the music. (the amount of money the market is willing to pay for the product)
The artifical inflation of price has maintained a high production value and a large number of well-produced and highly-advertised attempts at stardom. If the industry were to make only as much money as their product is now worth, the number and/or the quality of the product as a whole will necessarily decrease.
What would likely happen is that a lot of the "me-too" stars and the already low profit niche music would slough away until only the core of the most profitable music remained. (read: lowest common denominator) This might mean a lower produced Brittany Spears, but no Christina Aguiliera, no Mandy Moore, no Pink, or other me-too stars.