[6stringmerc]

The link is to a reasonably thought out and worded perspective from that of a technology industry participant. As noted within, there are some guiding principles which establish the basis for perspective and action. As in, the Free Software Foundation wouldn't be interested in participating in the for-profit software market.

For a counter-point, when this case first broke and I was able to study the implications from a creator and "IP holder" perspective, I wrote the following essay:

https://medium.com/@6StringMerc/arguments-against-the-dmca-s...

I will genuinely engage with anyone who would like to take some assertions or postulations of mine and challenge them for the sake of discussion. These are important topics!

[pdkl95]

> Copyright Abolitionists

Only a small subset of people against DRM and the problems in the DMCA are against copyright.

Also, as zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC already pointed out, the FSF is fine[1] with for-profit software. This confusion often derives from an assumption that you have to deny distribution rights to your customers to sell them anything. That isn't always true.

> study the implications

What you seem to be missing (in general) is about the EFF's fight against Section 1201 is that this isn't about copyright. The EFF is fighting the ban on bypassing "technological measure[s] that effectively controls access to a work"[2]. This ban makes some types of security research illegal, because the law treats security researchers announcing a DRM bug the same as someone exploiting the same bug to copy a movie.

Right now you are probably using a browser that contains a 3rd part black box CDM ("Content Decryption Module"). Every day you use that browser you're betting that nobody has found an exploitable bug in that black box. Bugs are particularly dangerous when they are hidden in a black box; it's easy to ignore bugs that nobody can see. This concern isn't hypothetical: a bug in Chrome's Widevine CDM was discovered recently[3].

[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html

[2] 17 U.S.C Sec. 1201(a)(1)

[3] http://boingboing.net/2016/06/24/googles-version-of-the-w3c....

[6stringmerc]

Using your reasoning, only a small subset of people are genuinely affected by the Section 1201 implications - security researchers in particular. Again, you also in some ways prove my point by mentioning that DRM work-arounds are nearly a daily occurrence in certain arenas. My essay argues - vehemently - that academic exemption that passes the Four Factor Fair Use test absolutely deserves to be codified into the Section 1201 going forward. This is not hard to understand.

What you are missing, which is extremely important, is that Copyright is a synthetic construct and therefore absolutely useless without any protectionist mechanism. AKA "the right to make copies" - DRM is just that - a mechanism to protect the right of the originator to, under Copyright law, retain power over the "Intellectual Property." I believe it's counter-productive, or maybe even logically dishonest, to claim that destroying DRM isn't extremely intertwined with Copyright as we know it.

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

> Using your reasoning, only a small subset of people are genuinely affected by the Section 1201 implications - security researchers in particular.

Using your reasoning, only a small subset of people would be genuinely affected by a ban on medical research - medical researchers in particular.

Security researchers don't do security research for the sake of it, but to make information technology more secure. When they find a security problem that allows criminals to compromise your system, to steal your data, to break into your bank account, whatever, they publish those findings to allow you to protect yourself, and to allow people building those vulnerable systems to fix them (and to pressure them into actually fixing them, as vendors usually don't fix vulnerabilities without the threat of them becoming public). So, the current state of the DMCA means more security vulnerabilities in everyone's computers/smartphones, including your very own, and in the servers that you rely on and store your data on. So much for only affecting a small subset of people.

> Again, you also in some ways prove my point by mentioning that DRM work-arounds are nearly a daily occurrence in certain arenas.

Which doesn't really make it a good idea to keep them illegal? Just because it's usually not enforced, doesn't mean there is no risk for those using the workarounds.

> What you are missing, which is extremely important, is that Copyright is a synthetic construct and therefore absolutely useless without any protectionist mechanism.

First of all, much of the legal system is a synthetic construct. But most of the legal system works just fine without "protectionist mechanisms" of the severity of DRM. Is it illegal to stab people with a knife? Yes. Do we forbid passing on knowledge about how to create a knife? No. There is no mechanism that actually hinders people from stabbing other people. It's only a synthetic construct and punishment if you don't follow the rules.

But also, it's just not true. Copyright was not useless before DRM or the DMCA. There were more than enough cases of people being successfully sued, or even prosecuted and convicted, for selling unauthorized copies of works.

It's a basic principle of a free society that you don't do everything that would technically be possible to enforce the law, but you rather accept that the reach of the law is limited, in order to achieve freedom. The law is that you aren't allowed to murder people. It would probably be technically possible to prevent almost all murder by chaining everyone to their beds. But we don't do that. We instead accept that some murders will happen that could be prevented this way in order to gain freedom. That does not mean that the law against murder is useless.

> AKA "the right to make copies" - DRM is just that - a mechanism to protect the right of the originator to, under Copyright law, retain power over the "Intellectual Property."

Yes, it is, and it is a highly unfair and overreaching mechanism. It's a mechanism to retain power at a high cost to the other/controlled side. It's taking away everyone's power and freedom in order to enforce that one interest.

> I believe it's counter-productive, or maybe even logically dishonest, to claim that destroying DRM isn't extremely intertwined with Copyright as we know it.

I don't think anyone has ever claimed otherwise? Destroying (aka abolishing) slavery was extremely intertwined with property laws as we know them. That does not mean that property law, or copyright law, cannot work without slavery, or DRM.

[6stringmerc]

Interesting perspective, and unfortunately I do not even remotely share the "scope" of the effects being claimed, which is why I time and again argue for effective reform. You've framed this as an incredible societal harm, which I simply don't see from a practical standpoint. I'd feel a lot better about your perspective if you would agree that "effective reform" can be possible in this instance without over-arching slavery and murder insinuations. Equivocating DRM with murder is ludicrous to me, it just is from a rhetorical standpoint.

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

> Equivocating DRM with murder is ludicrous to me, it just is from a rhetorical standpoint.

Except I didn't say anything of that sort? I mean, I didn't even compare DRM to murder. So what the heck have you been reading?

[6stringmerc]

Yeah, you did in arguing that just because some Murders happen doesn't negate the utility of a law, but you've conflated Copyright which is a Civil matter in trying to discuss freedoms in a grand philosophical sense. I see you and I view the practical implementation of Copyright in the modern era from different perspectives. As in, you work from the premise that Copyright is sufficient in and of itself without the DMCA & DRM, and I patently believe that they were a response to Copyright being exposed as insufficient when something like basic Blu-Ray encoding was broken in seven (7) days. Discounting the dark-side capabilities of technology is, apparently, inherent in your premise. On this we are not in agreement.

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

> As in, the Free Software Foundation wouldn't be interested in participating in the for-profit software market.

You are mistaken. The FSF does not object to making a profit with software. In fact, they have been selling software themselves. It's about free as in freedom, not about free as in beer.

[6stringmerc]

Arguably destroying the DRM protections will have ripple effects on the for-profit software market. Do you contend otherwise?

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

Pretty much every change in law has some ripple effects on some for-profit market. Saying that therefore, an organization pushing for that change is somehow against making a profit in that market is just straw-manning it.

[6stringmerc]

Okay, I can follow how you interpret my statement. I'd like to clarify that what I was reaching for - and maybe missed - is establishing a "motive." As in, what is the "motive" to change the law? Is it completely altruistic? Is it capitalistic?

I'd like to think you'll grant me that the article is very one-sided, in that there's not a single mention of the arts industry's concerns with why they would fight so hard (almost psychotically hard) to establish and maintain the existence of DRM. Thus it felt, to me, extremely one-sided and, perhaps unwisely, I questioned the motive for such a framing.

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

> As in, what is the "motive" to change the law? Is it completely altruistic? Is it capitalistic?

Well, the motive probably varies person by person, but in any case probably can't really be reasonably summarized in a single word.

> I'd like to think you'll grant me that the article is very one-sided, in that there's not a single mention of the arts industry's concerns with why they would fight so hard (almost psychotically hard) to establish and maintain the existence of DRM.

Why should it not be one-sided? It's not like they are or pretend to be a neutral reporter. People from the "art industry" haven't exactly been known for presenting the EFF's and FSF's (and many others') arguments against DRM, and in particular against laws criminalizing the bypassing of DRM, have they?

> Thus it felt, to me, extremely one-sided and, perhaps unwisely, I questioned the motive for such a framing.

Well, nothing wrong with questioning it, I guess. I just don't see how you could then end up with the conclusion that it has something to do with the FSF disliking profit (or something to that effect), which is evidently not true.

Also, one very good reason for framing things a certain way is to challenge the prevailing framing. It's not exactly like the framing that's been established by the "art industry" is somehow neutral, after all.

[6stringmerc]

No, I understand, and I am no RIAA or Irving Azoff apologist. I want both sides to at least reconcile - in public - that they are at odds with one another and playing extensive PR games. I mean, I don't think we as a society, as voters, can make effective thoughts regarding compromise when simply being fired propaganda into opposite ears.

Or, to put it more bluntly, just because these entities can talk past one another doesn't mean they should do so. If they both act in this manner, should I just go ahead and give them both a pass?

The first "side," I think, to "rise above" the cherry-picking statistics and hyperbolic "negatives" will draw more support and eventually have the upper hand in negotiation. Not overnight. But cases like this try to sledgehammer something - to enact drastic change overnight - and in my opinion, that's not a prudent course of action with respect to most functions of Federal Law.

[icebraining]

To the FSF, and many others like me, DRM is a violation of human freedom. The art industry's concerns are valid, but introducing them into the DRM debate makes as much sense as the dairy industry's concerns when discussing the adulteration of milk with melanin. The point is simply not up to discussion as far as we are concerned.

[6stringmerc]

Ah okay I'm not going to reach really deep down into the philosophical issues - I will give passing rebuttal that human freedom also includes "freedom from" in the notion that one's creative works should be protected from exploitation by another. Saying the industry's concerns are valid, yet claiming they have no voice in one of the basic, established mechanisms that addresses those concerns strikes me as an underwhelming dismissal. The concerns may be disagreeable, but to eliminate them from discussion does an immense disservice to the espoused goal - as in, not acknowledging the presence of a motivated, determined "foe" is like a horse wearing blinders. Sure, the direction can be established and focused upon, but it's getting hit by an unseen bus that can throw the whole course into disarray.

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

By the way, something to think about regarding your suggested solution to the "John Deere problem":

John Deere will simply start selling smart tractors. You know, a large machine with a strong motor and everything. And with a computer controlling it. But without any software. Or with only very basic software. You cannot actually do anything useful with it unless you install some tractor apps. Which you can licence. From John Deere. So, what have you gained? Or do you have any workaround for this that does not entail abolishing DRM?

[6stringmerc]

The workaround is to buy a Kubota or a Lamborghini or another equally suitable brand without the knee capping. Is this not a reasonable market-forces-problem-solving perspective?

Also, just to belabor the point, once a person purchases the John Deere under First Sale Doctrine they are completely entitled to replacing the computer with a third-party controller. Thus, that's Fair Use of the vehicle one purchased. Legally, in this context, John Deere can not claim that DRM was circumvented because the rights were terminated upon sale of the physical item.

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

> The workaround is to buy a Kubota or a Lamborghini or another equally suitable brand without the knee capping. Is this not a reasonable market-forces-problem-solving perspective?

Why is it a problem at all then? Doesn't this option to buy a different product exist currently?

> Also, just to belabor the point, once a person purchases the John Deere under First Sale Doctrine they are completely entitled to replacing the computer with a third-party controller. Thus, that's Fair Use of the vehicle one purchased. Legally, in this context, John Deere can not claim that DRM was circumvented because the rights were terminated upon sale of the physical item.

Well, there is actually a huge pile of problems buried here. Namely, the pile of problems that proponents of DRM tend to not understand. Or to not even be aware of.

Are you saying that only replacing the computer would be allowed? Is it crucial that the computer is swapped out? Or is the computer also part of the machine that you own, so you should also be allowed to modify the computer itself however you like? I'd like to understand where you think the line should be drawn between what pieces of the physical thing that you buy that you are allowed to modify as you like, and which pieces are off limits, if any?

Also, it would be helpful if you could give some short indication of what you know about the inner workings of computers and software, so I don't end up explaining stuff to you way above or way below your level. Do you know some assembly? Digital circuitry basics? Theoretical computer science/halting problem? Complexity theory basics? Cryptography?

[6stringmerc]

My first computing experience was with the Mac 512k at age 5. I grew up in an Apple household and then discovered how behind I was with not knowing DOS. We became a Windows household in the age of Dell vs. Gateway PCs. I learned how to work on machines, replace hardware, work through software conflicts, and got a job at 16 working in a small office making broken things into Frakenstein boxes. Taught myself HTML from books. I can whistle the 28.8 modem handshake from memory. Went from QBasic to C++ using the Borland compiler. Went to University on a CS scholarship and hated having to work in Unix and play with algorithms instead of focus on modern skills. So I quit and went over to English, and turned my attention to using my technology skills to enjoy the burgeoning and blossoming nature of computer assisted art.

Honestly I don't care for your thinking that you're going to explain anything to me, because it's obvious that my attempts to explain artistic creator perspectives are follies.

So, in turn, it'd be helpful if you could give a short indication of what your creative experience is to set a parity of baseline: Have you published a creative work? What instruments do you play? How good are you at drawing? Have you ever been on a film set, professional or otherwise? How have you distributed your creations? How much have you made from them?

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

> Honestly I don't care for your thinking that you're going to explain anything to me, because it's obvious that my attempts to explain artistic creator perspectives are follies.

Well, if you don't actually care to understand, why pretend so in the first place?

Also, I don't really see you explaining much so far? Though I suspect there wouldn't even be all that much disagreement on my part with the problems that you see.

> So, in turn, it'd be helpful if you could give a short indication of what your creative experience is to set a parity of baseline [...]

I think I'll skip this simply because I don't see the relevance. Just assume that all answers are no/none. Or explain how it's relevant to the discussion at hand.

Now, you skipped the most important part, didn't you? Where do you draw the line with the smart tractor that I bought? I didn't ask for your level of knowledge to get into a competition, but in order to be able to make myself understood to you. But if you don't say anything that I could respond to, what's the point?

[6stringmerc]

None? None. So we have no common ground. I have some from your platform, and you have none from mine. To accuse me of not willing to engage or understand is, to me, hypocritical.

I guess we just have a failure to communicate. We'll just have to wait and see and maybe re-visit these threads after this case is settled. I've done more than my fair share of explication and noticed some kind of gap that neither you nor I are willing to bridge for whatever reasons. Good day to you Madam or Sir.

[in_the_sticks]

That essay could start off better. Assigning your side blue and the opposing side red and then immediately showing that red==bad, blue==good feels kind of hostile to opposing views.

[6stringmerc]

That was not my intention though I understand the impression it might make. I was going for higher contrast. I suppose even using "green" for one could be interpreted as a form of insinuating greed? It was a sketch of an idea to conceptualize, as I'm genuinely between both parties with respect to merits and criticisms. Which, I do acknowledge, is not necessarily a welcome perspective in this particular site.