Slashdot Mirror


DRM More Important Than Life or Security?

An anonymous reader writes "Ed Felten of Freedom to Tinker has an interesting writeup regarding how copyright holders are still having serious objections to the built in exceptions of the DMCA even when it might threaten lives or national security. From the article: 'One would have thought they'd make awfully sure that a DRM measure didn't threaten critical infrastructure or endanger lives, before they deployed that measure. But apparently they want to keep open the option of deploying DRM even when there are severe doubts about whether it threatens critical infrastructure and potentially endangers lives.'"

8 of 427 comments (clear)

  1. "Copyright holders" don't give a fuck ... by kcbrown · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ... about anything but themselves.

    They never have. Perhaps the biggest role of the corporations that belong to the organizations mentioned in TFA is to act as a middleman. Today they add almost no value to the economic equation. That means they're basically parasites. Parasites that, in this case, don't give a fuck about the host (the public) they prey upon.

    As long as they get theirs, that's all that matters to them. And they will do everything in their considerable power to make sure that remains the case. They embody everything that is wrong with modern crony capitalism.

    It's long past time for them to die.

    --
    Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    1. Re:"Copyright holders" don't give a fuck ... by kcbrown · · Score: 5, Insightful
      If you every created anything, you too are a copyright holder.

      Yeah, that's why I mentioned the "copyright holders" in the TFA in particular, but I suppose I should have been more clear that I'm limiting my comments to them, and not extending them to all copyright holders everywhere.

      In my humble opinion, copyright should be nontransferable, and should belong solely to the original creator of a work, or to every individual involved in the joint creation of a work. It's fine for the copyright holder(s) to exclusively license their work(s) to a corporation, even for free, but the right for them to terminate the license at will (despite any contractual wording to the contrary) should be built into law. This is the only way I can see copyright properly benefitting the original creators of a work. The system we have right now, where copyright is almost always immediately and irrevocably transferred to some corporation, is little more than a system of slavery.

      I suspect that the original authors of the Constitution saw it that way, too.

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    2. Re:"Copyright holders" don't give a fuck ... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Interesting

      if you are a creative person there is nothing wrong with trying to make a living from your cretions.

      Of course there is.
      It would be obviously wrong to point a gun at someone and make them pay for a copy, "or else."

      My point is that there is nothing wrong up to a point and then there is wrong.

      The debate is about where that point is when it goes from right to wrong. Some people believe that point is just short of pointing the gun, and some people believe that the point is all the way back at simply publishing the creation. A lot of people don't really know where they think the point is, just somewhere in between those two extremes and thus you get the constant debate, rehashing the same ideas over and over again.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  2. The bottom line by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What you really need to keep in mind when talking about this is that the groundwork is already laid. The DMCA is law. What is being argued over now is the details of what types of media should be covered by exemptions. If you think that you are fighting over consumer rights, the DMCA is doing laps around you.

  3. The scorpion and the frog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river.
    The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn't see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back.
    Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream.
    "Hellooo Mr. Frog!" called the scorpion across the water, "Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?"
    "Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?" asked the frog hesitantly.
    "Because," the scorpion replied, "If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!"
    Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. "What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!"
    "This is true," agreed the scorpion, "But then I wouldn't be able to get to the other side of the river!"
    "Alright then...how do I know you wont just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?" said the frog.
    "Ahh...," crooned the scorpion, "Because you see, once you've taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!"
    So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog's back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog's soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current.
    Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog's back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.
    "You fool!" croaked the frog, "Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?"
    The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog's back.
    "I could not help myself. It is my nature."


    This is a story often told in psychology classes. To understand the immutable nature of something is vital. There is no point intellectualising, making excuses and analysis, sometimes something just is what it is.

    For humanity it is necessary to recognise the intrinsic nature of capitalism . It is an unfettered force which puts the value of money and profit above life itself. There are too many examples and stories from reality which prove this time and again that we would be fools to ignore this force. Unless we take steps to moderate the present capitalist system a few unlucky people will be left sitting on a vast pile of gold upon the smoking remains of a planet .

  4. Mr. President, we have a problem... by jettoki · · Score: 5, Funny

    The terrorists have open-sourced their WMDs, and the DRM on your BRR (Big Red Button) has expired. I've called an emergency meeting with Linus Torvald.

  5. Re:"Copyright holders" by kcbrown · · Score: 5, Informative
    You're confusing individual copyright holders with the middlemen that some of them are tied to. Big difference.

    No, I'm not. In the vast majority of cases, the copyright holder is the middleman. Most people who do creative work do so for someone else. The creator doesn't retain the copyright, the person they're doing the work for does.

    And for most individual creative endeavors, the copyright isn't owned by the creator, it's owned by the publisher. The assignment of copyright to the publisher has become a condition of getting paid at all.

    No, in the general case the copyright holder and the middleman are one and the same.

    --
    Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
  6. Re:DRM - 1st step away from government copyrights. by EzInKy · · Score: 5, Insightful


    DRM is the act of a producer to make reproduction of their creation difficult. I don't see a problem with this any more than by putting a lock on my front door.


    You really don't see a problem with someone putting a lock on your front door and keeping the key for themselves?

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.