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."
Government regulations sure didn't help Eric Garner
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.
Any rational interpretation would suggest that when rich people and large corporations buy or pay off the loan on a congressperson, they own it, and should be free to get whatever legislation out of it they see fit. Least of all should they have to deal with interference from busybody economists trying to tell them what's "rational."
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
Straw man -- go f* yourself. You are the problem with American society today and I hope that you are just trolling versus truly believing what you just wrote. The gist of the argument isn't people should be allowed to use things they own or rent to hurt others, the argument is: when someone purchases a product, they should be entitled to own it.
The real problem here is that various forms of intellectual property have been combined to squeeze consumers into a corner. [X] device makes life easier, has become a social norm, is required for work, or whatever other justification for its purchase. Company [Y] has a patent on [X] so that for the next 21 years the control it's distribution. They apply a firmware that restricts the usage of [X] device relying upon the DMCA and copyright law to prevent you, or others, from making the device more useful or extending it's life beyond the artificial limitations imposed by Company [Y].
Despite that fact that you've paid the device off, Company [Y] has stopped supporting that version of the device, and you have physical possession and the ability to modify it, doing so is now a criminal offense (despite not causing harm to anyone) because the government says so. It's completely ridiculous--at least to me. I do not put corporate profits above all things, which is probably the failing here. The fact that we purchase and accept these artificial and economically driven limitations is a sad state of affairs.
I have a 7 year old laptop that is perfectly usable, except for the fact that the manufacture has locked it down specifically to create an artificial limitation on it's usefulness in order to maximize their profits. I no longer purchase any products from that company and encourage everyone I know to move away. The US needs a return to quality, not an headlong dash into planned obsolescence backed by governmental protectionism.
It's pitiful. Completely pitiful. And argument that it "could" harm the children should, similarly, be thrown away.
God damn it; I'm mad as hell...but I'll keep taking it because I have bills to pay and a family to feed. Motherf*ers.
If no one can make (DVD/Blue ray players/that one tool required to fix your car) EXCEPT them, then they have a strangle hold on the market and can do as they please.
Exactly. It is in no way in my interests as a consumer to have, say, a region-locked DVD player, or a Blu-ray player that won't let me skip to the contents I want to watch instead of sitting through legal notices that don't even apply in my jurisdiction, or a PVR where I can't transfer my HD recordings to a different PVR if the first player is defective and needs to be returned. There is literally no-one who gains from these restrictions, not even the content creators or the manufacturers.
However, the current state of intellectual property laws prevents anyone from (lawfully) competing in that market with a better offering, because patents and anti-circumvention rules make for very good ways to be anti-competitive without actually breaking any laws. And that is in the interests of the organisations that control those rights.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
And the correct market response to that would have been to call their bluff, and then enjoy the movies from those that survived. The idea that all the studios would have stopped releasing their content anywhere but in theatres is utterly implausible and was never a serious threat.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
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.
Yes, but that does not prevent assholes from bringing worthless lawsuits. It might discourage even marginally circumspect lawyers from doing so, but the burden to challenge the merit of an action, once initiated, rests with the respondent.