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?
A complete repeal of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act would also repeal the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA). Such a repeal would make it much easier to find online service providers liable for their subscribers' actions. Remember that YouTube's successful defense against Viacom was that it qualified for the OCILLA safe harbor.
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.