Slashdot Mirror
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.
So... making a backup copy for when my kids destroy the CD/DVD (or when my hard drive crashes) isn't fair use?
Agile Artisans
They should call it the Sega Act
so with all the failed attempts at bulletproof DRM and anticopying, is there actually any UNcrackable media?
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?
liqbase
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.
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).
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.
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.
Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped.
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."
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.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!