Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Windows Vista DRM:

Rate this topic


mweiss

Recommended Posts

But it’s not the making of the copy which harms the company it’s the fact that I have given it to another person.
That isn't really so. Copyright means that the owner of the right has the exclusive right to authorize copies. This means that you cannot make 10 or 2 copies for yourself. (Remember also that IP law is spaghetti-like, so the Fair Use doctrine is an exception to basic IP law). "Harm" isn't really the right concept to be invoking, so from a legal POV, there may be no harm in violating a person's rights.
So when did the notion that it was copying that is immoral arise?
That's encapsulated in 17 USC 106, which states that the copyright owner has the exclusive right to copy or allow copying. The concept "owns" means that the owner has the exclusive right to dispose of, and "copyright" refers to the right to copy. Thus if you buy a book, you may burn, boil or bury (or give away) the book, because the physical book is your property. You do not own the right to copy. So to copy something -- to claim ownership of something that is not your by right -- is an immoral act. (Actually, it's as frequently an ignorant act, since most people don't understand that some other person owns the right to make copies). So basically, you just didn't understand what you bought -- the right to the one physical object, and not the right to make copies. The right to make copies still rests with the copyright owner.
If I buy a new CD I believe you’d say I can’t make a copy FOR MYSELF.
Yes, that's correct (although you may actually be able to, that is, there could be a law that allows it: hire an IP attorney if you want a professional opinion).
If that is the case shouldn’t I be forbidden from singing the song? Shouldn’t I be forbidden from discussing the lyrics with someone? I know I should defiantly be forbidden from being inspired by the song.
Read the law again. You can discuss the lyrics and even quote the lyrics to a limited extent (given the Fair Use laws). You're just being hyperbolic in implying that the law prohibits being inspired by lyrics. You can definitely get in real legal trouble of you steal someone's song and start performing it -- plenty of cases of that in the courts. (The law distinguishes public and private acts: copyright gives the owner the right to control public performances, but not private ones meaning singing in your shower of playing a DVD at home for friends).
After-all I just purchased a license to listen to it. I haven’t really purchased anything.
Why didn't you purchase a performance license? That is what you're supposed to do. Yes, it costs more, but it is not your property!!. I know DJs do it all the time, and it is wrong. Pay the fee. Pay the fee. PAY THE FEE!!
Bringing it back to Microsoft, it’s none of their business what I do with my computer (unless I’m hacking Windows and distributing it to my friends.)
True, but it's none of your business what they do to their program. If you don't like this new plan, switch to Linux / Unix. I think the fact that there are competitors will keep MS on their toes, so that this doesn't become a major disaster.
If Vista intentionally inhibits the functionality of a card I purchased form a separate merchant than something immoral is going on.
No, not given that you agreed to allow this to happen. If men with boots and bats were to break into your house and beat you until you installed Vista, then we'd be having a different conversation. But if you get Vista, it will because you agreed to and you accepted all of the terms of their software. Please don't say "but nobody reads those EULAs". Read the EULA. Memorize it!
Copying personal property for personal use would seem to fall under “fair use” it would seem that “fair use” was thrown to the wayside. Can anyone tell me when?
Another "ask a lawyer" question. The fair use law doesn't allow personal-use copying. Now if you want to know the one section of copyright law that really needs fixing, this is it. A reading of the law tells you "Or, maybe not". I don't know to what extent the original intent behind "fair use" has gotten officially twisted beyond the commenting / researching idea. As far as I know, making unauthorized personal copies has never been legal in the US, but it has become "de facto okay" because if I were to sue you for making a personal backup copy of my product, I would be limited to recovering actual damages, which would not be worth my while.

Anyhow, personal copies are not part of why there was a "fair use" exception, and the name "fair use" has been corrupted to mean "If I think it's fair, then I can do it". It has widely been taken to mean "any amount of copyright violation done in the name of education is okay" (makes life really sucky for somebody who writes textbooks for a living).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The question here isn't one of what is actually legal but one of what ought to be legal. Law is based on politics, which is based on ethics, which is a branch of philosophy.

Previously I said that the DMCA makes things illegal that "aren't otherwise." I suppose what I am getting at is that I am comparing the legal system to a moral standard and that the legal system was worse, according to the moral standard, after the DMCA than it was before it.

Microsoft can produce whatever OS it wants. The problem is that the legal system is actually banning alternatives. Linux may soon become illegal because it fails to enforce copying restrictions and because its open-source nature would make it too easy for anyone to just remove any copying restrictions from the code and recompile. It is already illegal to write open-source drivers for wireless networking cards for a similar reason (it would be possible to alter the code for the drivers in such a way as to program the cards to violate FCC restrictions).

Also, it is not true that the DMCA preceded DRM. Various forms of copy protection were in use on microcomputer software in the 1980s. Software companies abandoned them because they weren't effective and because they inconvenienced legitimate users. They were responding to market pressures in doing so.

DRM cannot survive in the marketplace apart from laws that make it illegal to produce stuff that doesn't have DRM. These laws, that protect DRM from the market, infringe individual rights. The recently proposed PROTECT act is an example. (It makes it illegal to produce a device capable of recording satellite radio without putting DRM on the recording. It also requires any streaming broadcaster to put DRM on his broadcast.)

To my knowledge, Objectivism supports the right to property, but the right to property is not arbitrary. Remember that the U.S. became a much more moral (and more capitalist) nation by abolishing a certain form of "private property" in 1863 or so.

Edited by necrovore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose what I am getting at is that I am comparing the legal system to a moral standard and that the legal system was worse, according to the moral standard, after the DMCA than it was before it.
I'd consider the possibility that things actually got better; so what makes things worse in your opinion? Doing something to protect property rights from the literally hundred of millions of rights-violators with computers out there who think "If I copy it, it doesn't harm anyone" would be a good thing. Slamming the door shut on home-brew copyright violations is a positive move, and at least potentially, that is what this does.
Linux may soon become illegal because it fails to enforce copying restrictions and because its open-source nature would make it too easy for anyone to just remove any copying restrictions from the code and recompile.
Is there some part of the law (please cite the actual law) that suggests that this is a possibility? I.e. is there now a statute that requires all OSs to contain copy-protection code? That would be a good example of an immoral aspect of the law.
It is already illegal to write open-source drivers for wireless networking cards for a similar reason (it would be possible to alter the code for the drivers in such a way as to program the cards to violate FCC restrictions).
Okay, so that would be another thing I'd like to see evidence of.
Also, it is not true that the DMCA preceded DRM.
In this context, I was under the impression that we were discussing a specific law-driven move by MS.
DRM cannot survive in the marketplace apart from laws that make it illegal to produce stuff that doesn't have DRM.
I suspect that you're right, because the urge for the unearned seems to be very strong these days. Although MS could make money off of content-producers by helping to enforce the rights of the copyright owner, this will lead to legions of whingeing customers who are unhappy with MSs ham-handed implementation and their cooperation with evil money-grubbing industries, so I do think they will blink.

To the extent that the laws require businesses to self-sacrificially protect the rights of others, those laws are wrong. I don't think such laws are implausible, I'm just not yet persuaded that such laws exist. Yet. If you know where in the Cornell compendium the statutes are, that would pretty much decide the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd consider the possibility that things actually got better; so what makes things worse in your opinion? Doing something to protect property rights from the literally hundred of millions of rights-violators with computers out there who think "If I copy it, it doesn't harm anyone" would be a good thing. Slamming the door shut on home-brew copyright violations is a positive move, and at least potentially, that is what this does.

You have to make sure that "doing something" doesn't infringe the rights of anyone else.

It would actually be very easy for the government to set up a police force that surfed the internet just like everyone else -- no special wiretapping or anything -- and looked around for pirated media, just like any typical pirating kid would. Once they started to get a pirated file, they would have the IP address (or addresses) it was coming from, and it would be easy to start a legal proceeding. One problem is that the damages have to be high in order for it to be worth a court's time -- but why use a court every time? If these things were dealt with in the same manner as traffic tickets, it would get better results.

If the cops cannot be trusted to monitor the Internet, then let the good people turn the bad ones in. I think that much of our legal system, historically, used to be based on that sort of idea -- that the government doesn't have to monitor everything to discover crimes, because people will report suspicious activity. If a large percentage (like 90%) of the people are willing to tolerate piracy, such a problem cannot be solved by the government; it has to be solved by philosophy. But even 10% peer reporting would drive piracy far underground, as the pirates would have a hard time telling which peers were other pirates and which would turn them in. There can also be a bounty for catching pirates.

There is no need for the legal system to remove the "Record" button from people's devices.

Is there some part of the law (please cite the actual law) that suggests that this is a possibility? I.e. is there now a statute that requires all OSs to contain copy-protection code? That would be a good example of an immoral aspect of the law.

I don't think this is part of any existing law, but laws have been proposed (and defeated) that would have such an effect. The SSSCA was defeated.

Okay, so [the illegality of distributing open-source drivers for wireless networking cards] would be another thing I'd like to see evidence of.

Only certain wireless networking cards are affected. Some cards enforce FCC regulations in hardware, and therefore no driver can possibly cause the card to violate the regulations. In such a case, open-source drivers are okay. But some cards depend on software to enforce the FCC regulations. In this case, making the software open-source would allow users to tinker with the regulatory enforcement and possibly cause the device to no longer be certified (or maybe even be ineligible for certification).

It's one thing if a radio transmitter, for example, has a variable resistor on the inside that, if the owner takes the device apart and adjusts it, puts the transmitter out of compliance with FCC rules. It's another thing if the radio transmitter has a knob on the outside labeled "Do Not Touch"... A closed-source driver can be deemed part of the device, but an open-source driver is "outside" because it can be modified by the user.

This Slashdot thread mentions that IBM was interpreting an FCC regulation to mean that their Lenovo laptop wasn't FCC-certified (and therefore shouldn't operate) if it has an uncertified wireless network card attached to it.

This article on ars technica says that Intel is making that claim about one of its wireless networking devices.

I've read that technically the FCC regulations apply to the user, not the manufacturer; "modifications may void the user's authority to operate the equipment." But if the driver enforces FCC regulations, it is technically part of the device. It may affect whether the FCC can certify the device.

In this context, I was under the impression that we were discussing a specific law-driven move by MS.

MS may be moving in anticipation of a law that they think will pass. But it is possible that they expect no such law and that they are taking the business risk of pushing an unpopular feature now, in the hopes that people will eventually warm up to it. Microsoft has done that before. (For example, Microsoft pressured computer manufacturers to include CD-ROM drives in their computers before the drives were popular. People now like CD-ROM drives.)

I suspect that you're right [that DRM cannot survive in the marketplace apart from laws that require it], because the urge for the unearned seems to be very strong these days.

It is not "unearned" to want to control the media and devices that you paid for.

Although MS could make money off of content-producers by helping to enforce the rights of the copyright owner, this will lead to legions of [whining?] customers who are unhappy with MS's ham-handed implementation and their cooperation with evil money-grubbing industries, so I do think they will blink.

It is good and honest for a company to want to make money. I begin to worry, however, when it looks like they are willing to give up money in exchange for having power and control. This comes from different sources:

(1) The "political entrepreneur" type of businessman who is just more interested in having power over people than making money

(2) Product liability laws requiring businessmen to try to prevent their customers from doing activities that will get the business sued

(3) Government regulations and laws requiring businessmen to enforce rules against customers

All three are products of the mixed economy. Under pure capitalism, (2) and (3) would be illegal, and (1) would likely be driven out of the market by better alternatives.

To the extent that the laws require businesses to self-sacrificially protect the rights of others, those laws are wrong.

Even if the business would benefit from it, the act of forcing it on them makes it wrong.

Although I don't think copyright itself is debatable, I think it's debatable whether copyright should be extended (and it is an extension) to allow the copyright holder, or the government acting on his behalf, to control every aspect of every device that your copy of his work passes through, on the grounds that you must be totally prevented from being able to make a copy.

I don't think such laws are implausible, I'm just not yet persuaded that such laws exist. Yet. If you know where in the Cornell compendium the statutes are, that would pretty much decide the matter.

Even if the laws aren't on the books yet, they're coming. It seems that nothing stands in their way except a bunch of hippies who want to eliminate copyright altogether.

It seems that the DRM debate is shaping up to be one of totalitarianism versus anarchy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would actually be very easy for the government to set up a police force that surfed the internet just like everyone else -- no special wiretapping or anything -- and looked around for pirated media, just like any typical pirating kid would.
True, but this goes for businesses, governments, thieves and terrorists alike: surfing the internet is easy. As far as I know, it's only the government (the US government, and a few other governments like it) which are legally restricted in the snooping that they can legally do. It's a fact that in order to protect rights, the government ultimately has to use force; it doesn't constitute an argument against government protecting rights that the government can also use the same methods to violate rights. However, in this case, I don't believe that there is any reason to be concerned, since the underlying wrongful act (copyright violation) is not a crime against the state, so the government has no standing to initiate proceedings against illegal copiers. That responsibility falls on the copyright holder.
If the cops cannot be trusted to monitor the Internet, then let the good people turn the bad ones in.
Whether or not the cops can be trusted to monitor the Internet, good people should turn in the thieves, indeed. One version of such good people would be software and hardware makers who work to prevent thieves from violating copyrights. I don't know whether the technology being invisioned includes a reporting function, or simply a blocking function. The thing is, I'm not certain whether a person can be sued for attempted copyright violation, though they certain should be. I'll see if I can figure that out.
It is not "unearned" to want to control the media and devices that you paid for.
Right, I was referring to the fact that vast numbers of people want to use the devices that they paid for to violate the rights of others.

I think we agree that there should be no law forcing manufacturers to do this or that. There's a separate question of whether a person who knowingly aids and abets the violation of other peoples right should be held liable (as in the Grokster case, or Moussaoui). I would say that they should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say there's a software manufacturer. We'll call it "TinySquish." It makes an operating system called "TinySquish Panorama." The EULA is presented for acceptance after the end user opens the box, puts the disc in the drive, and runs the installation program. The EULA contains the following clause:

YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE SOFTWARE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL, COPY, OR USE THE SOFTWARE; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND, IF APPLICABLE.

Furthermore, let's say there's a software retailer. We'll call it "Most Advantageous Purchase." It sells TinySquish Panorama. The store's return policy contains the following clause:

Opened computer software, movies, music and video games can be exchanged for the identical item but cannot be returned for a refund.

Finally, let's say there's a customer. We'll call him "Johnny." Johnny can't read the EULA unless he purchases and opens the software. Johnny does so, but decides to reject the EULA. Johnny tries to return the product pursuant to the EULA, but Most Advantageous Purchase refuses to accept a return, offering only to exchange the software for an identical copy (with an identical, equally objectionable EULA).

Here's the question: Is Johnny hosed? The EULA only says he can have a refund "if applicable" from the retailer. The retailer says one isn't applicable. Has Johnny essentially paid the full retail price simply to be given the opportunity to read and reject the EULA?

-Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the question: Is Johnny hosed?
This is homework, right?? Well, at that level, who the hell knows? You're only hosed when SCOTUS turns you down. I actually bought that software from that store, and yeah, I was hosed, though I didn't hire a suit to recover the $25.99 in damages. I'd say he is facially hosed, but no doubt there is lots of doctrine out there that can be used for a non-hosing conclusion.

The store's policy is prominently enough displayed, which is the primary consideration. The basic sales contract involves Johnny and the store, not Johnny and TSP (short for ToughSh*tProducts). Johnny elected to buy the product knowing the risks. He could have requested of a sales agent that he be allowed to read the EULA before buying (the store can spend the dime to open a pack, for such business purposes), and did not. He could have requested a printed copy of the EULA from TSP, in advance. He also knows, or should know, that software is licensed and not owned (you own the copy of the medium). The concept of "license" implies "conditions on use", for example "can only be used on Sundays". He acted in full knowledge and disregard of the actual or potential risks, and has no grounds for action against either the store of TSP (and indeed, the closest I could imagine there being a cause of action would be against the store and not the vendor). Hosed, and deservedly so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, not homework. Inspired by discussions of shrinkwrap agreements and duress in contracts class, though.

Both Davids make a similar point - Johnny should have read the EULA, made available by TinySquish in other ways, before purchasing. But what guarantee does Johnny have that the EULA offered for perusal is identical to the EULA in the box? It's the EULA in the box he has to agree to, not the one on the website, or in the other box.

Could Johnny keep and use the software, but try to make the argument that he agreed to the terms of the EULA under duress; specifically that his only meaningful options were either to accept or lose his purchase price?

-Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what guarantee does Johnny have that the EULA offered for perusal is identical to the EULA in the box? It's the EULA in the box he has to agree to, not the one on the website, or in the other box.
Primarily this is between Johnny and the vendor: he should buy only if the vendor promises that the sample EULA is the same as what's in the box, or makes an exception to the no returns policy. The fact that he can't get the vendor to act in a way that benefits Johnny doesn't mean that he has been coerced into buying the product. For one, he could just go directly to the right-holder -- and if the right-holder doesn't want to deal with him, Johnny should get a different product.

His only meaningful choices are to accept the risk, or refuse the offer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure I agree. I think it would be wise of Most Advantageous Purchase to make EULAs for the products they sell available on demand. It would avoid those problems of upset customers trying to return opened software, and would keep the customer in the store, rather than allowing the customer to leave (in order to research the EULA elsewhere) and perhaps end up making his purchase somewhere else. I might try asking for an EULA next time I visit my friendly neighborhood Most Advantageous Purchase and want to buy some software. It will be interesting to see if they're willing to accommodate me.

-Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll try to sum it up:

Either Microsoft excludes DRM and gets blasted for not supporting HD, or it includes DRM and is blasted for restricting viewing. If you don't like DRM, complain to RIAA/MPAA, or just don't patronize them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the complaints boil down to the fact that some people don't want to be forced to pay for the price of DRM incorporation into the hardware, as well as the performance hit it will take in terms of CPU burden to process the encryption management. PCs are on the threshold of becoming very powerful, but this will set them back a good 3-4 years, not to mention add more bloat to an already puffed up OS.

I guess the question turns to "should PCs be media/entertainment centers?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Whether or not the cops can be trusted to monitor the Internet, good people should turn in the thieves, indeed. One version of such good people would be software and hardware makers who work to prevent thieves from violating copyrights. I don't know whether the technology being invisioned includes a reporting function, or simply a blocking function. The thing is, I'm not certain whether a person can be sued for attempted copyright violation, though they certain should be. I'll see if I can figure that out.

There's a separate question of whether a person who knowingly aids and abets the violation of other peoples right should be held liable (as in the Grokster case, or Moussaoui). I would say that they should.

People turning in thieves is one thing, machines doing it is another. This isn't really like a burglar alarm at a bank, either; it would be more like trying to put a sensor on a handgun that stops the handgun from being fired if it is being used for murder, but allows it to be fired if it is being used in self-defense. How would such a sensor work? How can it tell the difference? And what if something causes the sensor to be set off inappropriately (in either direction); is it merely an inconvenience, or is it depriving someone of their rights?

I think the complaints boil down to the fact that some people don't want to be forced to pay for the price of DRM incorporation into the hardware, as well as the performance hit it will take in terms of CPU burden to process the encryption management. PCs are on the threshold of becoming very powerful, but this will set them back a good 3-4 years, not to mention add more bloat to an already puffed up OS.

I guess the question turns to "should PCs be media/entertainment centers?"

If you want to watch a movie on your laptop on a plane, you might want your PC to double as a media and entertainment center. (Although I wonder if technically you might need "public performance" rights, if the people in the row behind you decide to watch too.)

I find it interesting that Steve Jobs of all people has called for the end of DRM on music. Interesting, because he has not extended that to movies, or to Mac OS X for that matter. But he is not in favor of abolishing music copyrights either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People turning in thieves is one thing, machines doing it is another.
That's true: machines don't give in to emotional pressure, which people do.
How would such a sensor work? How can it tell the difference?
And most important, why should it tell the difference? Remember that the question is not whether some machine figures out a person's purposes, but whether it can figure out a person's actions. Stealing with a fancy excuse is still stealing, and the nice thing about having robust anti-theft devices (in your grocery store and in your computer) is that it doesn't care that you were only going to steal for a short time, or that you didn't feel that your stealing was hurting anyone.

I would really love it if there were a huge cultural change and people actually came to understand that theft is immoral. Of course, they wouldn't say "In some cases, theft is okay", instead, they have constructed a whole different concept of theft. The most common construction of copyright violation that people have built for themselves is that it's about marketing competing books and CDs on a massive scale. Most people actually believe that if you do something for your own use, or for friends, at any rate not for profit, then you can copy anything you want, because the object of copying is public property (and copyright is a government license to make a profit from that public property).

When was the last time you got all angry and denounced a person for violating another person's copyright? When did you say to your brother "You shouldn't copy that CD, it's stealing -- buy it, instead"? When did you tell your child "You only bought that one copy of the song for your computer: it is not yours to give away to all of your friends"? So although I agree that it would be better if people were to get up in arms about the massive theft that typifies the utter contempt for IP in our culture, that is not going to happen. The only hope is going to be a robust and objective physical procedure which actually enforces respect for rights. A system that prevents theft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When was the last time you got all angry and denounced a person for violating another person's copyright?

All the time. It really irks me that people are ok with things like limewire or certain videos on youtube or peakvid. My friends know my views on the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's true: machines don't give in to emotional pressure, which people do.

And most important, why should it tell the difference? Remember that the question is not whether some machine figures out a person's purposes, but whether it can figure out a person's actions. Stealing with a fancy excuse is still stealing, and the nice thing about having robust anti-theft devices (in your grocery store and in your computer) is that it doesn't care that you were only going to steal for a short time, or that you didn't feel that your stealing was hurting anyone.

What you're saying is that humans cannot be trusted to make the distinction between murder and self-defense, or between legitimate and illegitimate copying, because of "emotional pressure." Such a statement impugns all of humanity and, if I am reading it correctly, is outrageous.

A proper government should be like a robot with the laws as its only motive power, but -- it is not the case that "any robot will do."

DRM systems are typically designed and owned by media companies and are therefore not designed to acknowledge the rights of anyone else.

No one should own the police.

I would really love it if there were a huge cultural change and people actually came to understand that theft is immoral. Of course, they wouldn't say "In some cases, theft is okay", instead, they have constructed a whole different concept of theft. The most common construction of copyright violation that people have built for themselves is that it's about marketing competing books and CDs on a massive scale. Most people actually believe that if you do something for your own use, or for friends, at any rate not for profit, then you can copy anything you want, because the object of copying is public property (and copyright is a government license to make a profit from that public property).

I haven't seen people connect their casual copyright violations to the widespread idea that a copyright is "a monopoly granted by the government as a reward for creativity." I have seen the latter used as justification for many bad changes to copyright law, though.

Most people believe however that if they make private copies for themselves it is none of anybody else's business. That sounds like common sense to me and I agree with it.

I detest the modern trend toward there being all sorts of "terms of use" associated with everything that you buy -- whether licenses to copyrighted work, or land (which can come with use restrictions), or physical objects. The presence of such terms means that you cannot really own anything anymore. You have to agree to all the terms set by the previous owner -- not just at the time of the sale, but for all time. And these terms can be completely arbitrary.

(I am stuck sometimes having to abide by such terms, and I do abide by them, but I try to avoid buying things that come with such terms.)

I daresay that such a trend is anti-property and anti-capitalist. When you sell an object, it should properly be no longer yours, and you should no longer have the right to set the terms of its use. You can set the terms under which you'll sell it, but that's different from controlling the object after its sale. When you buy an object, similarly, it should become yours.

So what does it mean to "own" a license to a copyrighted work? It doesn't mean you can make copies for other people -- that is the exclusive province of the copyright owner. But the copyright owner shouldn't have any business knowing what devices you have in your home that you may use to "process" his work. You may even wish to invent such devices yourself. Provided that your devices don't make copies available to others, they should be allowed.

This is especially important when you consider that, if Ray Kurzweil's predictions are correct, some of the devices you use to enjoy works may become more and more intimate with your brain. Do you really want a copyright owner being able to dictate the structure of your brain or the method of its operation?

When was the last time you got all angry and denounced a person for violating another person's copyright? When did you say to your brother "You shouldn't copy that CD, it's stealing -- buy it, instead"? When did you tell your child "You only bought that one copy of the song for your computer: it is not yours to give away to all of your friends"? So although I agree that it would be better if people were to get up in arms about the massive theft that typifies the utter contempt for IP in our culture, that is not going to happen. The only hope is going to be a robust and objective physical procedure which actually enforces respect for rights. A system that prevents theft.

All the time. It really irks me that people are ok with things like limewire or certain videos on youtube or peakvid. My friends know my views on the situation.

It happens to me a lot, too. I have bought and paid for several software packages over the years (FrameMaker, Acrobat, MSDN subscription, Partition Magic), only to be told by coworkers that I am "wasting money" buying things I "could have gotten for free." (They are not talking about open-source alternatives, either.) I tell them that if somebody didn't pay for them, there wouldn't be anything to copy, but their general opinion is that I am "being a sucker" for paying. It really ticks me off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, I forgot about this thread. Steve Jobs yesterday or the day before threw his view into the ring with the release of his "Thoughts on Music", which I blogged on. I found his view (elimination of DRM) to be particularly self serving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you're saying is that humans cannot be trusted to make the distinction between murder and self-defense, or between legitimate and illegitimate copying, because of "emotional pressure." Such a statement impugns all of humanity and, if I am reading it correctly, is outrageous.
Stop being ridiculous and holster your outrage. Humans have free will; humans do murder and steal, and you are not guaranteed that no person will murder or steal. Your implicit denial that there are many thieves would be outrageous if it weren't so funny. Getting back on topic and off of your confused wandering into murder, I see no reason to think that even half of mankind respects copyright. You yourself, below, expressed your contempt of copyright. Most people believe it is acceptable to copy without permission. The majority of them do not understand why it's wrong to do so. But it's still wrong, even if most people operate on immoral premises. Most people are religious, too.
DRM systems are typically designed and owned by media companies and are therefore not designed to acknowledge the rights of anyone else.
So what? Lawnmowers are not designed to acknowledge the rights of anyone else. If thy lawnmower offends thee, pluck it out. If you don't like the DRM systems that are available, don't buy them. There is no law that forces you to buy anything. Expect to get sued if you buy these systems and steal other people's property -- it's as simple as that. If I were to witness you stealing another person's material, even without DRM, I would probably be willing to testify against you at your trial. But of course there is little change that I'd witness you stealing other people's stuff or that the owner would know that they could call on me, so you're safe.
Most people believe however that if they make private copies for themselves it is none of anybody else's business. That sounds like common sense to me and I agree with it.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Yes, most people do hold that belief. Most people now also hold the belief that it's okay to steal from big companies, that cheating on insurance claims is okay (because insurance companies are just trying to get rich). Still, theft is theft.

The question is what can be done about this disease. One possibility is to make copyright violation a crime. Send the evil miscreants to prison, just like other thieves are dealt with. I have been thinking about this, and I think it is probably the right thing to do, exactly because of this decline in respect for property rights. The alterative is to simply abandon the concept of intellectual property. That is giving in to the evil conduct of the masses.

I detest the modern trend toward there being all sorts of "terms of use" associated with everything that you buy -- whether licenses to copyrighted work, or land (which can come with use restrictions), or physical objects.
And I detest the modern trend to denying property rights. Contracts are becoming meaningless, property rights are all but gone, all we are going to be left with is the largesse of the state, which will confiscate all wealth and distribute it "fairly". Rand wrote a book about this --you might want to give it a look.
(I am stuck sometimes having to abide by such terms, and I do abide by them, but I try to avoid buying things that come with such terms.)
Why? What is it about these agreements that you feel you should abide by them?
I daresay that such a trend is anti-property and anti-capitalist. When you sell an object, it should properly be no longer yours, and you should no longer have the right to set the terms of its use. You can set the terms under which you'll sell it, but that's different from controlling the object after its sale. When you buy an object, similarly, it should become yours.
If you do buy something, you can sell it or give it away. Your problem is that you want own things that you have not bought and paid for. You can sell your CDs to your friend because you did buy the CDs. You did not buy the music. Sell the physical object, okay. No copying: you do not own the music.
But the copyright owner shouldn't have any business knowing what devices you have in your home that you may use to "process" his work.
That's a non-sequitur. If you are unwilling to submit to the rights-protecting measures that a seller requires his customers to use, then don't become a customer! You have theright to only buy unprotected materials -- are you claiming that a seller has no right to protect his property?

I can't make sense of your position. If you reject property rights and don't think that a man has the right to the product of his mind, then I can't understand why you would have any reservations about any level of stealing of protected material. Why would you turn in a data-thief, if you don't think he's doing anything wrong? If you do accept property rights, then why do you claim that you have a right to do something that you do not actually have a right to do -- you do not have the right to copy. It is not your property. Is it simply that you're laboring under the delusion that when you buy a book or a CD that you've bought the right to make copies? You haven't. You only have the right to use that one physical copy -- if you can figure out how. I assume that you also know that your right to listen to a music CD does not mean that the government have the obligation to give you a means to play the thing, or that if you have a Beta tape, somebody has to somehow provide you a method of playing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You only have the right to use that one physical copy -- if you can figure out how.

I appreciate the logic of your position (if I understand it correctly) but I see practical problems that doom it in reality. I transferred my entire CD collection to Apple iTunes for convenience, so I can play the music on my iPod (and iTunes has an easy-to-figure-out feature for CD importing that facilitates doing exactly this). When I backed up my hard drive, another copy was generated. Strictly speaking, this all violates the copyright, does it not? So now, to be moral, I have to go back to the musical stone ages lug around a huge box of discs and change them manually, instead of using my iPod? Also, what if there isn't a physical copy, just an iTunes download? When I put it on my iPod, that makes a copy. So there's got to be some copying that's morally okay in certain specific contexts, and DRM will surely provide for that. Now, given that that is the case, why must it be wrong to (for example) do essentially the same thing by creating a mixed cassette tape (like everyone did back in the 80s) for one's own convenience and personal use? What is the moral - not what the law or DRM allows, but the moral answer? I think it's a bit more complicated than just saying that the single physical copy you buy is all you get to have, period. There is value in the flexibility as to the manner of use that technology offers, and I really struggle to see how using my iPod in that specific context could be immoral. Have I misunderstood your position? If not, I think that view will simply be consigned to practical irrelevancy. Arguing that using an iPod is immoral and we need to carry backpacks full of CDs everywhere to play on our discman to be good Objectivists sounds like a decent way to kill the movement (not to mention, our backs).

Edited by Seeker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I transferred my entire CD collection to Apple iTunes for convenience, so I can play the music on my iPod (and iTunes has an easy-to-figure-out feature for CD importing that facilitates doing exactly this).
I'm not surprised (and I mean, simply, that this is within the realm of what most people think is morally okay). 1: Did you do that because you thought you had permission from the artists to make copies? 2: Did you do that because you figured that a major company would not have an easy method for ripping off CDs (it's usually shortened to "ripping") if it weren't actually okay? 3: Do you have specific legal knowledge that informs you that it is okay. 4: Do you feel that since you paid for those CDs, you ought to be able to do whatever you want as long as it only involves you?

Answer 4, and its variants, are what really bug me. Answer 3 is the "hat's off to you" answer. 2 is intellectually sloppy; 1 is too, but the sloppiness is less striking. The answer should be in category 3. What you want is to be sure that you only get music that has the kind of license that allows you to copy it to your ipod or PC or whatever. The problem is not copying, the problem is copying without permission. If you can get permission, if you are certain that you have permission, then feel free to... [NB I am betting that you may not give away your CDs without erasing the dowloaded music from the Ipod. That is certainly the standard condition on disposition of programs).

When I backed up my hard drive, another copy was generated. Strictly speaking, this all violates the copyright, does it not?
If you'd ship me your hard drive, I can probably make a determination. I'll try not to damage it. Anyway, possibly, but improbably. Copying with permission is allowed, and my handy Adobe EULA does allow making backup copies. If you can find a Software Nerd who has a lot of experience with software licenses, you might get a better answer, but my recollection and experience has been that any software that lets you install to a hard drive allows you to back the software up.
So now, to be moral, I have to go back to the musical stone ages lug around a huge box of discs and change them manually, instead of using my iPod?
If you don't have permission to stuff the sum of western pop music on your Ipod, yes. Are you thinking otherwise, that it would be an inconvenience for you to respect the property rights of the owners of the tunes, and therefore you have the right to do what you want, and not that they permit you to do? Copying with permission is moral; copying without permission is immoral. That is a very simple rule. Do you disagree with that statement that distinguishes the moral and the immoral in the realm of copying?
Also, what if there isn't a physical copy, just an iTunes download?
I'm not a user of such services, but I think you buy a kind of license which allows you to install on various iPods. Downloading is a form of copying, so you do have a copy. I looked into one of those online tunes places, and the EULA did give you the right to download (multiple times) to your media devices. To Apple's discredit, they make it extremely difficult to determine the terms of their license. But is you're a users, you should be able to tell what the conditions of usage are. What did they say that made you think you had permission to make multiple copies?
What is the moral - not what the law or DRM allows, but the moral answer?
Excellent, now we're down to the essential issue. It is moral for you to make as many copies as you have been granted permission to make, by the owner of the IP. That could be zero copies (learn not to patronize them), one (still risky), two or any number, subject to the "own use" condition. The law sets the baseline -- zero copies. By permission, that can be increased. Read the EULA and you will know the answer. Demand a clearly stated EULA. If your favorite artist insists on a zero-copy policy, then get a new favorite artist. For a few more years, we still have a nominally free market, so you can use your dollars to influence the available options.
There is value in the flexibility as to the manner of use that technology offers, and I really struggle to see how using my iPod in that specific context could be immoral. Have I misunderstood your position?
First, understand that I do ultimately support a general license to the individual, so that you can buy a tune and play it wherever you are. Part of making this possible, while protecting copyright, is something like DRM. Remember that the copyright owner can choose to allow multiple copying, or disallow it. That is the right of the copyright owner. The customer has the right to not buy a product which they judge to be too restricted to be practical. Now you can put those two together. In a society that respects property rights which also has a way of enforcing restricted multiple copying, no sane artist would support a no-copy policy -- because customers would simply not buy the product. The problem we're faced with right now is the growing contempt for property rights in society, matched by soaring rates of theft. Tighter restrictions are necessitated because in the digital world, 1 loose copy becomes 10,000+ freebies with just a few keystrokes.

Now maybe you can solve my dilemma. I want to buy a CD, Musta Lindu, which appears to be completely out of print, everywhere in the world. I'd pay them real money for a copy, but it seems that the rights-owners are simply not interested. I don't know if they have a plan to re-release the album, or they hate me, or they can't be bothered. So what am I supposed to do? They aren't leaving me any choice, other than to buy one of the LPs that are occasionally available but my god who uses vinyl. Or I could rip off a copy. I really don't have any choice. They are forcing me to be immoral.

Oh, wait, my wants do not constitute a valid claim on another person's life. The idea of "acting morally" is based on acting in a principled way. In the short term, it would be great if I could steal a copy of that album. In the long run, it's a step towards death. A repudiation of the principle behind the concept "property". I don't want to be a contributor to the destruction of a principle which is necessary for my survival.

The practical answer is, make it profitable to allow restricted multiple copying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what? Every pathetic attempt at DRM has been cracked in a matter of months anyway. It's not like *any* DRM scheme has been even remotely successful in preventing people from copying media. If you don't like Vista DRM just wait for the inevitable crack to come out...

If you want to talk about morals, MS has every right to implement DRM. But I also have every moral right to crack it if I want, so this is really not an issue in my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...