Before the DMCA, it wasn't illegal to break encryption, only to profit from a copyrighted work that you didn't hold the copyright to. If someone was breaking encryption and distributing the work, on a p2p network, they were not benefitting, so there was nothing that could be done to them. Now, however, ditributing the movie, even of free, is a crime if you break encryption. Any person who's copyright has been infringed now has a legal right to punish both people, the person obtaining, thus benefitting from, the copyrighted work, and the person distributing, and breaking encryption of, the copyrighted work. I think that this is beneficial to society. Why would people stop sharing movies and other copyrighted works when there is no punishment to them? They wouldn't! And yes, I know what you're claiming, that your argument is that it is detrimental to society to make it illegal to break encryption, I read that in your first post. Your claims for supporting this argument, however, are just restatements on the theme "I can't do whatever I want to do, make the laws go away." You may be a responsible person that merely wants to put things in a convenient place, but society as a whole is not responsible, that's why we have laws. People were breaking encryption and posting things with no penalty, now there is at least the threat of penalty. If this law is so bad, can you explain how it passed both House and Senate nearly unanimously? Without saying that it was the recording industry's fault? The DMCA also put into effect international treaties regrading copyrights. It didn't just make breaking encryption illegal, it made a copyright granted in one's home country an internationally recognized right. That is another benefit to society. I do not think that repealing the DMCA is a good idea, maybe amending it is, but not repealing it. Amending it is only a good idea if there is a legitimate reason to do so, aside from "I can't break encryption of a copyrighted work and gain access to that work, even though I really want to and I think I should be able to."
While some people, such as yourself, may want to put a DVD on a fileserver out of convenience, others will break encryption and put movies into filesharing programs. The DMCA makes that illegal, thus justifying the DMCA. The DMCA gives copyright holders recourse against those that supply the illegal copy along with those that download it. Seems like a good reason to have it, if you ask me. Besides, "I can't do what I want to do, so the laws are wrong" is a pretty bad argument. I keep giving you reasons, you retort with but "but that keeps me from doing what I want, no fair!" Copy the DVD, that isn't illegal, but use a way that doesn't require you to break encryption, what is the issue with that? If you want to do something that a licensed player won't let you, it is obviously something that caused a problem in the past prompting the DMCA to outlaw it.
What legitimate reason is there for using a program, such as DivX, that has been deemed illegal. You can obtain legal DVD viewing programs for free, so why is it necessary to use an unlicensed player?
No one is keeping people from accessing a copy of something that they purchased the right to. Maybe the way that we are allowed to access something isn't the way that some people prefer, but that doesn't make the legal way wrong, just as it doesn't make the prefered way necessary or right.
Taken from the DMCA:
"Section 1201 divides technological measures into two categories: measures that prevent unauthorized access to a copyrighted work and measures that prevent unauthorized copying of a copyrighted work.... As to the act of circumvention in itself, the provision prohibits circumventing the first category of technological measures, but not the second.
The distinction was employed to assure that the public will have the continued ability to make fair use of the copyrighted works. Since copying of a work may be fair use under appropriate circumstances, section 1201 does not prohibit the act of circumventing a technological measure to prevent copying." http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf
It sounds to me like you can still take your DVD and copy it onto your computer. What you can't do is break any encryption that protects the work itself.
On another note, how is keeping people from accessing copyrighted works detrimental to society?
I am not so sure that I did miss the point.
The problem with this thinking is that by purchasing a DVD, you have not purchased the work on it. Buying a DVD only gives you license to use the information contained on that disc in a way that is in compliance with the law. So, when you buy a DVD, you haven't bought the right to do anything with the information on it except that which is considered the intended use.
Whether we like them or not, IP laws are here to stay. They are important to a society that desires growth and advancement, so important, in fact, that the framer's of the US Constitution thought it was necessary to include a provision regarding them while not including provisions regarding ownership of physical property. Article 1 section 8 says:
Congress has the power (Clause 8:) "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
Considering how difficult it is to amend the Constitution, it is probably best to stop arguing about the necessity or desirability of these rules. The truth is, IP is just as important to protect as physical property in a technological society. No protection=no incentive.
Slashdot Mirror
Before the DMCA, it wasn't illegal to break encryption, only to profit from a copyrighted work that you didn't hold the copyright to. If someone was breaking encryption and distributing the work, on a p2p network, they were not benefitting, so there was nothing that could be done to them. Now, however, ditributing the movie, even of free, is a crime if you break encryption. Any person who's copyright has been infringed now has a legal right to punish both people, the person obtaining, thus benefitting from, the copyrighted work, and the person distributing, and breaking encryption of, the copyrighted work. I think that this is beneficial to society. Why would people stop sharing movies and other copyrighted works when there is no punishment to them? They wouldn't! And yes, I know what you're claiming, that your argument is that it is detrimental to society to make it illegal to break encryption, I read that in your first post. Your claims for supporting this argument, however, are just restatements on the theme "I can't do whatever I want to do, make the laws go away." You may be a responsible person that merely wants to put things in a convenient place, but society as a whole is not responsible, that's why we have laws. People were breaking encryption and posting things with no penalty, now there is at least the threat of penalty. If this law is so bad, can you explain how it passed both House and Senate nearly unanimously? Without saying that it was the recording industry's fault? The DMCA also put into effect international treaties regrading copyrights. It didn't just make breaking encryption illegal, it made a copyright granted in one's home country an internationally recognized right. That is another benefit to society. I do not think that repealing the DMCA is a good idea, maybe amending it is, but not repealing it. Amending it is only a good idea if there is a legitimate reason to do so, aside from "I can't break encryption of a copyrighted work and gain access to that work, even though I really want to and I think I should be able to."
While some people, such as yourself, may want to put a DVD on a fileserver out of convenience, others will break encryption and put movies into filesharing programs. The DMCA makes that illegal, thus justifying the DMCA. The DMCA gives copyright holders recourse against those that supply the illegal copy along with those that download it. Seems like a good reason to have it, if you ask me. Besides, "I can't do what I want to do, so the laws are wrong" is a pretty bad argument. I keep giving you reasons, you retort with but "but that keeps me from doing what I want, no fair!" Copy the DVD, that isn't illegal, but use a way that doesn't require you to break encryption, what is the issue with that? If you want to do something that a licensed player won't let you, it is obviously something that caused a problem in the past prompting the DMCA to outlaw it.
What legitimate reason is there for using a program, such as DivX, that has been deemed illegal. You can obtain legal DVD viewing programs for free, so why is it necessary to use an unlicensed player? No one is keeping people from accessing a copy of something that they purchased the right to. Maybe the way that we are allowed to access something isn't the way that some people prefer, but that doesn't make the legal way wrong, just as it doesn't make the prefered way necessary or right.
Taken from the DMCA: "Section 1201 divides technological measures into two categories: measures that prevent unauthorized access to a copyrighted work and measures that prevent unauthorized copying of a copyrighted work. ... As to the act of circumvention in itself, the provision prohibits circumventing the first category of technological measures, but not the second.
The distinction was employed to assure that the public will have the continued ability to make fair use of the copyrighted works. Since copying of a work may be fair use under appropriate circumstances, section 1201 does not prohibit the act of circumventing a technological measure to prevent copying." http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf
It sounds to me like you can still take your DVD and copy it onto your computer. What you can't do is break any encryption that protects the work itself.
On another note, how is keeping people from accessing copyrighted works detrimental to society?
I am not so sure that I did miss the point.
The problem with this thinking is that by purchasing a DVD, you have not purchased the work on it. Buying a DVD only gives you license to use the information contained on that disc in a way that is in compliance with the law. So, when you buy a DVD, you haven't bought the right to do anything with the information on it except that which is considered the intended use.
Whether we like them or not, IP laws are here to stay. They are important to a society that desires growth and advancement, so important, in fact, that the framer's of the US Constitution thought it was necessary to include a provision regarding them while not including provisions regarding ownership of physical property. Article 1 section 8 says: Congress has the power (Clause 8:) "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" Considering how difficult it is to amend the Constitution, it is probably best to stop arguing about the necessity or desirability of these rules. The truth is, IP is just as important to protect as physical property in a technological society. No protection=no incentive.