[schnitzelstoat]

I agree with him that the retaliatory tariffs don't make much sense but equally basically throwing out copyright law would be crazy, as the US would likely respond in kind and it'd probably hurt Europe more in the long run.

They should stop the anti-competitive practices that prevent third-party app stores and so on though.

[bambax]

Anti-circumvention laws are not the same thing as copyright. Not in the least. And it's very debatable that copyright should be used for tractors, for example.

If you invent a new engine you can patent it. But if you make an engine that works like any other engine, why should society help you prevent your customers from tinkering with it?

[amiga386]

It's not advocating throwing out copyright; it's advocating killing the laws enabling DRM. Imagine!

No laws against removing the region lock on your DVD player.

No laws against fixing your tractor with 3rd party parts.

When Amazon deletes Nineteen Eighty-Four from your Kindle, you can put it right back.

When a games company "turns off" the game you bought, turn it right back on again.

[like_any_other]

Getting rid of circumvention and reverse-engineering bans is not remotely "copyright law". It is restoring basic ownership rights to our own property.

[Mindwipe]

You would effectively have to exit all international copyright law treaties to do so, which is defacto removing any international recognition of copyright for works from your country.

[like_any_other]

Copyright is covered by the Berne convention, which prohibits neither circumvention nor reverse-engineering, so even in this "what you're proposing couldn't easily be done without also doing this other thing, so I'm going to pretend you've proposed that other thing also, but I won't say so explicitly" interpretation, that is not true.

[Mindwipe]

The Berne Convention has been modified multiple times, including by the WIPO Copyright Treaty, which incorporates a requirement for all signatories to implement an anti-circumvention law.

https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/

[like_any_other]

No, the WIPO Copyright Treaty is separate from the Berne Convention, and did not modify it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPO_Copyright_Treaty

Furthermore, this whole discussion began with claiming it's impossible to undo anti-circumvention/reverse-engineering, without abandoning copyright entirely, because international treaties. Yet these treaties were modified multiple times, as well as new ones entered into. If it's possible to change these treaties to further encroach IP laws into our lives, why would it not be possible to change them in the other direction?

[ycombinatrix]

>"what you're proposing couldn't easily be done without also doing this other thing, so I'm going to pretend you've proposed that other thing also, but I won't say so explicitly"

that sir, is a strawman argument

[rwmj]

Not really. A digital lock is not a creative endeavour in the same way we think of books or records.

[esseph]

Cryptography isn't creative?

[rwmj]

These digital locks aren't usually inventing creative new cryptography (at least not the ones which are secure).

[isodev]

> basically throwing out copyright law would be crazy

Slightly off topic, but aren't we in the process of "throwing out copyright law" for the purposes of LLMs a.k.a the "automated" version of enshitification anyway? We've stretched "fair use" so much already, it won't be too big of a challenge to fit reverse engineering (removing DRM) into it.