The Argument for Crackable Media

rubberbando writes "Wired is running a story about how the US Copyright Office is looking for input about a law that will allow some media to be legally cracked. This is aimed at certain uses such as cracking an ebook so that a blind person can use reading software with it and older software that requires a hardware dongle that no longer works." From the article: "The DMCA forbids cracking of copy-protected or encrypted digital media, with certain exceptions. When the law was passed, Congress mandated the register of copyrights revisit the anti-circumvention section every three years to make sure consumers have proper access to materials they purchased -- even if content creators have them locked down. If the copyright office finds instances where copy protection prevents fair use of the work, then those copy protections can be legally circumvented." We reported on the other side of the coin yesterday.

Comments

Fair Use?

[jarich]

When the law was passed, Congress mandated the register of copyrights revisit the anti-circumvention section every three years to make sure consumers have proper access to materials they purchased -- even if content creators have them locked down. If the copyright office finds instances where copy protection prevents fair use of the work, then those copy protections can be legally circumvented."

So... making a backup copy for when my kids destroy the CD/DVD (or when my hard drive crashes) isn't fair use?

Re:Fair Use?

[sumdumass]

I believe that you are allowed to make backup copies for archival purposes anyways. It is already part of the fair use. Also, copyrite law already make special provisions for copying computer software and data for "incase situations". If the DVD or CD is playable on the computer, I would bet it is already in that catagory. The problem is that only one copy can be used at once. I don't think your allowed to used both copies at the same time. You can however have more then one copy installed on more then one computer if the second computer is for backups. check here for some more on it

Re:Fair Use?

[cpt kangarooski]

It should take more than a act of congress because this rips apart all common sense property rights on which all other rights are based on (oh wait, the Supreme Court just shit on that back in June).

Two things here. First, you don't seem to understand the Kelo decision; it's really nothing new, and not a big deal. Second, I disagree that other rights are founded on property rights. Property rights are basically utilitarian in nature, although they developed so organically that this wasn't really discovered until comparatively recently. We have them because they're useful, not because they're foundational to actual inherent rights. Hell, Jefferson specifically left them out of the Declaration -- he was quoting Locke, but substituted 'pursuit of happiness' for 'property' because he didn't think there were property rights beyond being able to simply defend what was in your immediate grasp, except by consensus, which is variable.

Why shouldn't I be able to read or "bypass" what I own like the 1 and 0s on DVD/CDs/etc?

Arguably because this also is part of the utilitarian scheme of copyright. Really, of course, those in power no longer care about the goals of the system and have become confused or corrupt. Personally I'm not opposed to DRM and legal support for it in theory; it's on the table, when considering policy. But I also don't think that it's ever really a good idea to engage in this, given the long-term effects and the minimal incentive it provides, so my position is very strongly anti-DRM.

Re:Fair Use?

[ConceptJunkie]

How is the DMCA even constitutional?

Constitutional? What does that have to do with anything? Apparently you haven't heard of the Benjamin Franklin Amendment: The one with the Benjamins gets to make the amendments.

This legislation was bought and paid for, period. Under the guise of legitimately protecting businesses from theft by piracy, etc, they have essentially given the businesses lock and key over what you purchase and thrown Fair Use out the window.

This country was founded upon the ideas of competition and free trade, but now there is a whole industry based on outmoded means of distribution (i.e., media companies who want to shackle us the _19th_ century modes of content distribution, or at least the functional equivalent). Sure I understand people are just illegally trading this stuff, but since almost every "innovation" in the industry is geared towards decreasing value and increasing hassle, they are making their own problems worse. iTunes, etc, is a start... not a great one, but a good step in the right direction. I know in my case, it's not that I want it free... I'm more than happy to pay for it, I just want it the way I want it with no restrictions on use. I want to be able to make a copy for my car, or a backup copy, or to be able to play it on my computer or PocketPC. At least we still have RedBook CD's, but I can forsee a day when it becomes illegal to sell them, in favor of some DRM'ed media (that has 0-day hacks for every upgrade...).

I sure wish I could buy laws, but you know the saying: one millionaire, one vote.

Re:Fair Use?

[rolfwind]

"Two things here. First, you don't seem to understand the Kelo decision; it's really nothing new, and not a big deal."

Gee, thanks for enlightening me with that convincing argument. Yes, that Eminent Domain for Public Benefit, as put down by the Constition, gets reworded to whatever (or whoever) promises to pay the most property tax dollars is no big deal - none at all.

"Hell, Jefferson specifically left them out of the Declaration -- "

First, the bill of right specifically states that because some rights aren't enumerated doesn't mean they exist.

Plus why then does the constitution address search and seizure, right to bear arms, disallowing troops from being quartered in your own home, as well as the eminent domain restriction if Property Rights weren't recognized? It's implicit in the entire constitution, without ownership, you cannot exercise any of your other rights because the goverment can indiscriminately take away whatever they like to oppress your rights (government doesn't like the New York Times print? Don't suppress their freedom of speech, just forcibly buy them out in the guise of public benefit! They don't want you to own a gun? Don't break the second amendment, just "convince" the guy to sell his gun at the government's declare fair price, etcetera)

"Second, I disagree that other rights are founded on property rights."

See above. Without property right, you don't even own yourself.

"Arguably because this also is part of the utilitarian scheme of copyright."

And this isn't big brother how?

Q:Why can't I read it?

A:Because you can't!

Q:What if theres something potentially damaging in there, shouldn't I have the right to my own property? How do I know you're not packaging something malicious if I can't take a look at it? And yet you want me to buy it and take it home?

A:..........

Re:Fair Use?

[cpt kangarooski]

Gee, thanks for enlightening me with that convincing argument.

It's not an argument, it's a fact. You may wish to see my other post on Kelo, on this page.

First, the bill of right specifically states that because some rights aren't enumerated doesn't mean they exist.

And the sky is often blue. I wasn't even discussing the Bill of Rights; you're bringing it up why?

Plus why then does the constitution address search and seizure

Privacy.

right to bear arms, disallowing troops from being quartered in your own home,

Distrust of standing armies, distrust of the federal government by the states, and distrust of government generally.

as well as the eminent domain restriction if Property Rights weren't recognized

Who said property rights aren't recognized? Not me. I said that they weren't "the foundation upon which everything else rests" which was the bizarre statement I had responded to.

Property rights do exist, but only because they're convenient. They're subject to change if necessary, and this has happened before.

without ownership, you cannot exercise any of your other rights because the goverment can indiscriminately take away whatever they like to oppress your rights (government doesn't like the New York Times print? Don't suppress their freedom of speech, just forcibly buy them out in the guise of public benefit!

No. The government cannot use clever means to infringe on your liberties just as much as they cannot use straightforward means. If the government attempted to purchase a newspaper solely for the purpose of censorship, the taking would be unconstitutional right off the bat. Furthermore, since a fair price -- as determined by a court and jury, if you reject the government's offer -- must be paid, you can set up a new newspaper. The taking is pointless, so there's little danger of even possible abuse.

Without property right, you don't even own yourself.

People are not property at all. No one owns people, not even themselves.

And this [anticircumvention provisions in copyright law] isn't big brother how?

It's hardly totalitarian. It's merely the product of greed. I oppose anticircumvention laws because I don't think that they are effective means of pursuing the goals of copyright. I suppose, however, that it might be possible to argue otherwise (though I've yet to be convinced), so it doesn't seem as though it would be outright unconstitutional. Congress has a lot of options for copyright law. Even if Eldred had turned out differently, they'd still have a lot of options. The best way to fix these laws is to get Congress to pass better laws, rather than engaging in court battles that, even if successful, are of limited utility. Don't read this as a total abandonment of the use of the judicial system for reform, however. They do still play an important part, just not enough to get all of what we want.

Re:Fair Use?

[rolfwind]

It's not an argument, it's a fact. You may wish to see my other post on Kelo, on this page.

No it's not fact. The "not a big deal" is an argument and interpretation.

But let's take your premise that it's nothing new even though I think the scope of it has reached unprecedented heights. Slavery was accepted until the 1860s. Yet was plainly unconstitutional the entire time, whether or the government decided to recognize that. Because it was nothing new, back then, did it make it any better?

"And the sky is often blue. I wasn't even discussing the Bill of Rights; you're bringing it up why?"

We were discussing rights, were we not? Why did you bring up Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration?

"Plus why then does the constitution address search and seizure"

Privacy.

"right to bear arms, disallowing troops from being quartered in your own home,"

Distrust of standing armies, distrust of the federal government by the states, and distrust of government generally.

That's one interpretation (I love how legal scholars read the minds of men, dead for over 200 years, or perhaps what a textbook told you), and take that as the only right answer.

Privacy is not even a right mentioned in the BoR or Declaration, AFAIK.

These rights imply that they protect you from something. But protection against unlawful search and seizure specifically protects property.

Who said property rights aren't recognized? Not me. I said that they weren't "the foundation upon which everything else rests" which was the bizarre statement I had responded to.

Bizaare? Have you ever read history and noticed that the societies w/o property rights are usually the most restrictive in all the other ways? Soviet Russia for one. Feudal Societies for another. There is a correlation there.

Even Eminent Domain respects property rights with its just compensation clause.

No. The government cannot use clever means to infringe on your liberties just as much as they cannot use straightforward means.

You are confusing "cannot" with should not.

Patriotic Act. Gun Laws. The BSA. Etcetera.

"Without property right, you don't even own yourself."

People are not property at all. No one owns people, not even themselves.

Maybe in the most technical jargon sense. Perhaps property would not make sense, but you own yourself - with nontransferable (ownership). Though You can sell your blood. You can give away your kidneys. You can tattoo yourself. You can contract yourself (time) out and subject yourself to what have you.

You are arguing on what hand that Thomas Jefferson only considered that we own grasp as our own property, but we don't have the complete command of ourselves?

"And this [anticircumvention provisions in copyright law] isn't big brother how?"

It's hardly totalitarian.

This is not what I argued, I said it's big brother. Big brother starts out in democracies to gain control and it's aim is total control - which DRM obviously is.

The copyright has been completely perverted anyway because the flip side has been ignored. Copyright is a contract between society and the "artist." Originally, for society's protection (which taxpayers have to pay enforcement), the works were to go to public domain after a limited time. With DRM schemes, this is a whole-hearted effort by the "artist" (manufacture) to restrict his work indefinitely. As such, he should not qualify for Copyright as he is attempting to fudge on his part of copyright - releasing the work into public domain.

Re:Fair Use?

[rolfwind]

No, it was plainly evil the entire time. It was constitutional, however. If you disagree, please point to the part of the antebellum Constitution (i.e. everything before the 13th Amendment) that prohibited it.

I read it here, but YMMV:

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Even under amendment XIV, it reads as if slaver could be used as a punishment (after due process) so.......

As for the rest, I do not want to be here all night:) Though I say amendment IV in it's entirety also has interesting implications with property in general - depending on interpretation.

As for the penumbra, that's very controversial I gather and not specifically stated in the BoR so much as implied - though the SCoUSA is on your side with interpretation and of course, privacy is a good thing.

I wish you good luck on that copyright work though - do you have a page on that?

Insane laws

[LiquidCoooled]

Why not just add a law mandating documented file formats?
Even if your company goes bust, your customers data should remain accessible.

How the data is used privately should be up to the customer, and is not the concern of the producer. We will have laws soon telling us how to use toilet roll, and inspectors coming round arresting us for unlicensed operations.

Laws are already in place for improper sharing of copyrighted materials, so why on earth do we need anything else?

Re:Insane laws

[Pig Hogger]

Why not just add a law mandating documented file formats? Even if your company goes bust, your customers data should remain accessible.

The law could say that they have to deposit the file format in the library of congress in order to protect that information, and it should be renewable every so often, paying the protection fee at each renewal. If the company goes under or does not support the data format anymore, it won't pay for renewal and the format becomes publically accessible.

How the data is used privately should be up to the customer, and is not the concern of the producer. We will have laws soon telling us how to use toilet roll, and inspectors coming round arresting us for unlicensed operations.

To this, however, I object. Toilet paper should be deployed ABOVE the roll, not below, so there should be a law prohibiting this, with roaming teams of toilet-paper inspectors.

Re:Insane laws

[NMerriam]

Indeed, and peanut butter belongs on the top half of the sandwich, the way God intended. Anything else should be a felony.

Re:Insane laws

[EzInKy]

Why should a software company have to give up its intellectual property on the whim of legislators?


Because copyrights are granted on the whim of legislators.

Re:Oh please

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the market won't solve this.
Disabled people may be a very small minority, but through no fault of their own they are unable to experience the things we can.
We should do all we can to help them experience and enjoy life as we do, and throwing stupid laws in the way just makes it miserable.

You answer your own innate flame by pointing out the government shouldn't help them, your absolutely right but by the same tune, they shouldn't hinder them either.

Another point, why should they have to pay more for something that they will only get partial use out of, if anything, audio or visual only recordings of movies should be available - at around 1/2 the price of the dvd.

Abandonware?

[st1d]

Will this have some effect on the abandonware issue? It's sad that companies can buy [comparatively unsuccessful] software for pennies on the dollar, only to bury it (to kill competition). More directly, there are a lot of old games that are unavailable, simply because their holding companies are waiting for someone to meet a "pie in the sky" bid to rerelease them.

Grrr...

All media can be cracked.

[Pig Hogger]

All media can be cracked.

Just don't get caught.

Seriously, less-broadly specified rights shall definitely trump precisely defined prohibitions. Like "fair-use", which is far more broadly defined than "thou shalt not circumvent © protections".

Or, put in other words, the exercise of a RIGHT cannot be prohibited to a given individual except by a court of law, the idea being to remove the law-making ability that has been put into private hands by the DMCA, for example.

Furthermore, more than ever, the Internet allows the "grass is greener" syndrome. The ability to send information instantaneously over great distances means that in any case, you'll always find a more favourable jurisdiction, rendering the prohibition moot.

For example, I live a day's drive away from the US federal capital, yet I can legally share music over the Internet, and nothing prevents me from running DeCSS on my computer, nor distributing crackster on my web server, things that would land me in jail if I had the foolish notion of embarking on a 30 minute drive (but fortunately, I don't have a car).

How about this...

[FlyByPC]

* Allow (legalize) any sort of encryption.

* Also allow (legalize) any sort of cracking.
* Enforce copyrights, as long as the complainant is the original author/performer. Third-parties (such as the RIAA) would not be legally able to benefit from any judgements.

* Along with this, make Intellectual Property available at a lower cost than much of it is today. For example, to download a song, pay what the recording artist/production team/etc would normally make, plus a small amount to cover the cost of the webserver (which would be less if files were distributed via BitTorrent.) The artists get their compensation (more, with increased volume); the public gets much lower cost content. The only losers would be the middlemen, who would then be free to go and get real jobs.

retract the DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

The DMCA is one of the worst laws enacted in history. The best and simplest solution that would benefit most would be to retract the DMCA. It could be replaced by laws that are less restrictive and exclusive rather than inclusive.

The labels should be responsible for this...

[accelleron]

Is it just me, or has the end user become completely dieregarded in recent years?

Look at, for example, the DRM schemes of today: The end user can consume information he/she legally purchased from only one point, and is restricted in terms of where he/she can transport his/her media. Did we have such laws before? Was it possible to pass legislation, or release content for that matter, that would limit the end user's rights to consume it? Could Sony's label release a CD that would only play 3 times, or that would only play on PC's and Sony CD players, without causing a public outrage? I think not.

It is sad to see the consumer, who is essentially the sole reason these companies make money, reduced to a state where he/she is forced to swallow limitations on the media purchased, and risk legal prosecution by choosing to use that media for himself in a way that the content distributors never intended. It is even more sad to see users succumb to this.

Legislation like this is a good step in the right direction, but I, for one, will not purchase a single file or disc until I can use it any way I want. Until I can insert my newly bought CD/DVD into my computer and have the CD's software offer to make me as many backup copies as I want, as many "friend" copies as I want, and as many transfers to any other device I wish, I will not buy a CD.

It's not enough to place the responsibility for monitoring the validity of the DMCA on some obscure board that will review a couple of formats once every three years, I should have the right to demand that my media plays in the way legally intended by the DMCA, at least, and the burden for ensuring this should be placed on the people that release the media. I should be able to sue, and win the lawsuit automatically, if I cannot use my media in the way I am legally entitled to without resorting to third-party solutions on shady sites the average consumer has never heard of, and will never find out about. I shouldn't have to re-encode my audio files through three different formats and manually rename and reconstruct the ID3 tags so that I can properly use my media, I should be offered to have everything done in a clean, quick, and effortless way by the CD itself, or at the very least be forwarded by the CD to a reliable website with clearly labeled instructions on how I can easily and effortlessly do so. Until then, our rights as consumers are not being enforced, and nor are the labels' responsibilities.

Re:The labels should be responsible for this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sony (or whoever) is free to start selling a CD that self destructs after 3 times you play it. They're also free to market the hell out of it. They are NOT free to whine to anyone but themselves when people don't buy their product because it stinks, though.

Makes sense...

[Slashdiddly]

If before we were able to crack a book open, how ebooks are different?

Allow any FOSS project to crack DRM

[plasmacutter]

FOSS software, e.g. linux, has been hindered in its ability to adequately compete for the desktop environment because it's illegal to market distros with fully functional digital media playback facilities.

without a media player ready to go out of box, linux is less appealing to the average user.

If they are taking ideas for revisions

[Midnight Warrior]

If the U.S. Copyright Office is soliciting ideas on this concept, a method exists to address accessibility for those disabled, and the "lost due to bankruptcy" sides. Two parts address each side.

Part 1: Copyright holders should be required to register each anti-circumvention method with the copyright office in exchange for which a number (which has no legal value) will be assigned to the method. IP firms which specialize in protection methods could register their methods as "base classes" for others. References to patent numbers might also be helpful.

Part 2: The holder then keeps a list available for public viewing which indicates the works and which copy protection methods they have employed. (Example: ebook "How To Be A Dummy," published 8Oct2005, document format: PRC, DRM method: 1,554,776 (Ref 334,665) ). Note that this is not registering your works. Ideally, this list should be notarized, either electronically or physically to prevent post-litigation tampering.

Part 1 takes the good old cryptography rule to heart, "The algorithm is never the secret. The input key is the secret." Two things happen here: bad protection is shamed away from being used, and the court system has a public notice of intent on the behalf of the holder requesting that the DMCA provide anti-circumvention enforcement. Then the U.S. Courts would only need to prove or disprove that the declared method was actually in use and attempting to protect the work in question. If expert commentary were recognized on at least "base class" methods, then prebuilt testimony could be used in courts to make enforcement of base-64 encoding methods an embarassment to the litigant.

Part 2 gives the courts the benefits of documentation regarding protected works. It also lets those who provide support to disabled individuals have a course of action with regard to legal circumvention. So it could, for example, allow someone who converts DRMed ebooks to audiobooks to become a limited, authorized agent to perform such action with nothing more than some paperwork from the copyright holder. If the copyright holder has disappeared (death or otherwise), then the method is publicly known and could be cracked within governed rules.

In short, there exists the potential to not take the teeth out of the DMCA while still executing it a more efficient way. Hopefully the methods described above represent ideas that tilt more power towards the public without actually removing any power of the copyright holder. Yes, many of us believe it should disappear, but the U.S. did sign an international treaty of which the DMCA is only a manifestation. Since the U.S. is a WTO member, it was a willing participant, although it could have fought back a little harder.

Re:Oh please

[Kjella]

You answer your own innate flame by pointing out the government shouldn't help them, your absolutely right but by the same tune, they shouldn't hinder them either.

I disagree, simply on the "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal [...]" basis. I think it should be part of the government's job to ensure that disabled people are treated as equals with the rest of us. In general, I rarely have a problem with benefits to those who really can't help their condition, whether it is from birth, through illness or injury. If we "shouldn't help them", there's a lot of people in social security (people who avoid work), healthcare (lifestyle diseases, alcohol, smoking, drug problems), public sector (social security by any other name) and so I'd stop helping first.

Another point, why should they have to pay more for something that they will only get partial use out of, if anything, audio or visual only recordings of movies should be available - at around 1/2 the price of the dvd.

You and I may buy the same phone, but I could use it five times as much as me or vice versa, or use completely different features and so on. It's a really bad metric. I'm simply willing to put accessability for the disabled as one of the ground rules, like environmental protections, work safety and so on. As long as everybody is bound by the same rules, it shouldn't affect free competition. Mostly because it's usually not a lot that is required, and denying it to them feels like kicking someone that's already down.

Patching the symptoms.

[dismentor]

I'm not sure they get it. They are taking rights away/extending the privileges of the copyright holder; All these circumstances where this causes trouble are /symptoms/ of the problem, not the problem itself. DRM is not a valid extension of the copyright holders' privilege to restrict public display and distribution; that is the issue.

Common Sense

[CriminalNerd]

Why can't our laws just have one line where it says:

"All acts that are obviously done due to the absense or ignorance of "common sense" will be punished accordingly."

The LAW is wrong...

[zappepcs]

Remember of course, that IANAL, but it seems to me that copyright law, especially that which upholds legal recourse for such small matters as fair-use is just not what the founders intended, nor is it in the best interest of the population.

I believe that copyright owners have a right to legal protection from those that would blatently copy their works and distribute for a profit. Anything that is no more damaging than a public library is fair game. That means it is not illegal for you to load a DVD to your friend before returning it to the rental place, nor is it illegal to 'loan' your copy to a friend.

Now making tons of copies and selling them at a local market... that's wrong, should be illegal.

Fair-use is not an illegal activity aimed at defauding the copyright owner, and any, *ANY* device or mechanism designed to prohibit your fair use of something you have paid to use is NOT the intent of copyright law.

What we have here is a need to re-educate and moderate the law.

Well, IMHO anyway

To allow access once Copyright expires.

[sbaker]

Copyrights and patents exist in order that the holder may gain some period of commercial value - protected by the state, in return for which, the work returns to the public domain once that period has expired.

It's a reasonably fair trade.

The DMCA (and encryption in general) overturns that trade. It allows the owner the protection of the law - but it doesn't give the public their rights to eventual open use.

That's not fair.

IMHO, people who encrypt their products should be denied copyright protection - in just the way that people with technical innovation can choose to keep that innovation as a Trade Secret instead of getting Patent coverage.

In the absence of this, historians of the future are going to have a very hard time finding out about our society. If most or even all media of the next century ends up locked away behind almost unbreakable encryption - with DRM hardware locking that encryption to a particular computer - it may become impossible for someone a few hundred years from now to read our newspapers, books or watch our movies. That would be a terrible thing.

It's bad enough that we've been primarily responsible for screwing over the planet for our descendents - but now we're working hard towards denying them access to our greatest musicians, authors and other media?

Right now, it seems like a computer from a few hundred years into the future would be able to break any of our codes quite easily - but when Moores' Law runs out of steam, the most powerful encryption systems we have on that day will probably be *FOREVER* uncrackable.

Congress needs a lesson in Contract Law

[serutan]

From the previous article...
No sane business operator enters a contract in which one party has the right to disregard its terms at will, but that's what HR-1201 permits.

That's also what Congress did when it passed the Bono Act in 1998, which extended copyright terms for another 50 years and retroactively placed all audio recordings made before 1972 under copyright until the year 2067. Many of these works were already in the public domain. But even the wax cylinders recorded by Edison in the 1890s are now copyrighted until 2067 because of this law.

Copyright isn't a fact of nature or a divine right, it's a contract between copyright holders and the public. The public agrees to respect a copyright and pay taxes to enforce it for a specific number of years. At the end of that time the public expects the work to become public domain. Every time Congress extends copyrights it's like declaring that all 30-year mortgages are now 60-year mortgages. Or in some cases, giving the house back to the bank after it's been paid up. Great news if you're the bank, bad news if you're the one making the payments.

What sane person would enter into a contract that allows the other party to disregard its terms at will? The average American citizen. Oops, I mean "consumer."

you failed to note his mischaracterization of 1201

[plasmacutter]

No sane business operator enters a contract in which one party has the right to disregard its terms at will, but that's what HR-1201 permits.

what a TERRIBLE mischaracterization.

if you enter into a contract and you breach that contract, then you pay, weather the law allows fair use or not

what HR-1201 allows people to do is to develop their own media access/playback systems for DRM'ed media WITHOUT ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT AT ALL.. which is how the copyright system worked before 1998, and how the free market works everywhere else.

You don't see ford getting their own pet law which forces tire companies to sign a contract for the "priveledge" of making tires for fords, nor do you see honda getting a pet law which forces snapon tool company to sign a contract for the "priveledge" of making tools which work with honda engines. The same free market principles should apply to copyrighted works.

Copyright is the exclusive right to produce and distribute, not the exclusive right to determine access.

'Encryption' should be defined.

[chris_sawtell]

The word 'encryption' should be defined so that simplistic methods invented about 2000 years ago are excluded from the legal definition. IOW the encryption methods should be strong and the key to the data held other than on the medium carrying the data. It is morally wrong to manufacture criminals out of intelligent teenagers overflowing with curiosity. Remember that the corollary to "... and lead us not into temptation", is "Thou shall not tempt others".