Slashdot Mirror
Economist: US Congress Should Hack Digital Millennium Copyright Act
retroworks writes This week's print edition of The Economist has an essay on the Right to Tinker with hardware. From the story: "Exactly why copyright law should be involved in something that ought to be a simple matter of consumer rights is hard to fathom. Any rational interpretation would suggest that when people buy or pay off the loan on a piece of equipment—whether a car, a refrigerator or a mobile phone—they own it, and should be free to do what they want with it. Least of all should they have to seek permission from the manufacturer or the government."
The DMCA was so badly written as to more or less entrench rent-seeking and remove property ownership from consumers.
Instead of saying "yes, you bought this product, it's yours", they've entrenched the "oh, you've only licensed it and we will tell you how you're allowed to use it".
Sorry, but if I bought it, I retain right of first sale. Which means I should be able to do anything I want with it, because it's my property.
This absurd notion that they still own it and define what I can do with it is stupid. If I don't own it, why should I pay you for it?
But, of course, the law was written to hastily ensure corporate rent seeking, because it was paid for by lobbyists.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Remember when Senator Orrin Hatch said copyright holders should get to destroy infringers' PCs?
there's fuck all that stops anyone, individual or manufacturer from suing for any, or no, reason.
There exist rules against suits without merit, which can cause the plaintiff to have to pay the defendant's reasonable attorney's fees, sometimes with punitive damages tacked on for wasting the defendant's time. If plaintiff's counsel repeatedly fails to diligently investigate the merit of each case, counsel might end up fined or even disbarred.