The DMCA might have something to say about whether or not you can legally crack software.
The DMCA only covers copy protection. (Read it some time, it's an interesting bit of legislation). Running a program on one operating system when it was designed for another doesn't count.
You're still cracking the protection, aren't you? The act of cracking itself is criminalized by the statute, I thought.
It criminalises circumventing technological measures intended to protect copyright.
The OS check in the installer is not copy protection, so far as I'm aware.
It is an "access control," though, right? It keeps people with XP from having access to the program. Also you don't need to infringe copyright to fall under this part of the act.
EULAs have, to my knowledge, never been tested in court, and there are a lot of reasons why overly restrictive EULAs (for example, an EULA that tells you that you cannot modify software you legally purchased to work with an operating system you legally purchased) would not hold up in court if they were tested.
Not to mention you actually have to buy the software before you get a chance to even read what is inside the EULA. But you can bet your ass that it will say "By purchasing this software you agree too....".
I agree with both Feral and you. This is a legitimate concern. Most retail chains prevent you from returning opened software. Therefore, any relevant contracts should be presented to you before purchase.
As far as Halo 2 and Shadowrun is concerned, there is no lie. I think we've all established that.
The lie is that requiring DX10/Vista for these games allows them to offer a user experience that is significantly different from the experience offered by DX9/XP.
The only time a corporation will get in trouble for an outright lie is when that lie either results in somebody's actual harm or is a lie to the stockholders. You not being able to play Halo 2 doesn't fall under either.
If I upgraded to Vista because I thought it would be necessary to run Shadowrun, then I could make the argument that this caused me harm.
The DMCA might have something to say about whether or not you can legally crack software.
The DMCA only covers copy protection. (Read it some time, it's an interesting bit of legislation). Running a program on one operating system when it was designed for another doesn't count.
You're still cracking the protection, aren't you? The act of cracking itself is criminalized by the statute, I thought.
No, possession of a "circumvention device" is criminalized, and stop using "cracking" as some kind of all-inclusive descriptor; the DMCA doesn't use the term anywhere, nor is it well-defined elsewhere.
It is an "access control," though, right? It keeps people with XP from having access to the program. Also you don't need to infringe copyright to fall under this part of the act.
It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services that are used to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works (commonly known as DRM) and criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, even when there is no infringement of copyright itself.
Turns out the DMCA is even more retarded than I thought.
The DMCA might have something to say about whether or not you can legally crack software.
The DMCA only covers copy protection. (Read it some time, it's an interesting bit of legislation). Running a program on one operating system when it was designed for another doesn't count.
You're still cracking the protection, aren't you? The act of cracking itself is criminalized by the statute, I thought.
No, possession of a "circumvention device" is criminalized, and stop using "cracking" as some kind of all-inclusive descriptor; the DMCA doesn't use the term anywhere, nor is it well-defined elsewhere.
It definitely prohibits the act of circumvention as well. I just looked it up.
If I upgraded to Vista because I thought it would be necessary to run Shadowrun, then I could make the argument that this caused me harm.
EXACTLY!
You two have literally stumped me on this point. I could not disagree more and I am finding it difficult to empathize with you and your perspective so I am not sure how to articulate a response.
It is an "access control," though, right? It keeps people with XP from having access to the program. Also you don't need to infringe copyright to fall under this part of the act.
It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services that are used to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works (commonly known as DRM) and criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, even when there is no infringement of copyright itself.
Turns out the DMCA is even more retarded than I thought.
But why is that retarded? Why shouldn't it be the IP owner's legal right to create arbitrary access controls?
Is it, then, illegal to modify the product to suit your needs? I assume it's a breach of the EULA, in any case. What about modding consoles, then? You bought the console as a physical product; isn't it your right to modify the hardware? Though I guess it's a violation if the chip modifies the OS?
Cherrn on
All creature will die and all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai.
But why is that retarded? Why shouldn't it be the IP owner's legal right to create arbitrary access controls?
Because it criminalises acts that cause no harm.
EDIT: To refine slightly, It is the right of the content owner to create arbitrary access controls, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal to work around them.
Is it, then, illegal to modify the product to suit your needs? I assume it's a breach of the EULA, in any case. What about modding consoles, then? You bought the console as a physical product; isn't it your right to modify the hardware? Though I guess it's a violation if the chip modifies the OS?
Varies from country to country. In America, a modchip is a banned "circumvention device", but at the same time, nobody's been arrested or sued for owning one yet. In Australia, as long as the console has a region lock, and the modchip circumvents it, it's legal (regardless of other functions).
If I upgraded to Vista because I thought it would be necessary to run Shadowrun, then I could make the argument that this caused me harm.
EXACTLY!
You two have literally stumped me on this point. I could not disagree more and I am finding it difficult to empathize with you and your perspective so I am not sure how to articulate a response.
It is an "access control," though, right? It keeps people with XP from having access to the program. Also you don't need to infringe copyright to fall under this part of the act.
It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services that are used to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works (commonly known as DRM) and criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, even when there is no infringement of copyright itself.
Turns out the DMCA is even more retarded than I thought.
But why is that retarded? Why shouldn't it be the IP owner's legal right to create arbitrary access controls?
Why shouldn't it be the purchaser's right to modify a product they purchased? This has always fallen under fair use before; why should software be any different?
Besides, the DMCA has provisions for reverse-engineering for compatability reasons, so I'm not sure it applies in this case.
But why is that retarded? Why shouldn't it be the IP owner's legal right to create arbitrary access controls?
Because it criminalises acts that cause no harm.
Uhm, it criminializes acts that cause potential economic harm. Microsoft has every right to pursue income with their IP as they see fit. If they feel they can make the most money by making Halo 2 a Vista-only product, then they should be allowed to do so. Actions taken to subvert and advertise a circumvention of these access controls can most certainly cause economic harm.
If I upgraded to Vista because I thought it would be necessary to run Shadowrun, then I could make the argument that this caused me harm.
EXACTLY!
You two have literally stumped me on this point. I could not disagree more and I am finding it difficult to empathize with you and your perspective so I am not sure how to articulate a response.
Harm read: Unnecessary financial loss. That help?
You are implying that the game is "necessary" otherwise. It's not even that good.
If I upgraded to Vista because I thought it would be necessary to run Shadowrun, then I could make the argument that this caused me harm.
EXACTLY!
You two have literally stumped me on this point. I could not disagree more and I am finding it difficult to empathize with you and your perspective so I am not sure how to articulate a response.
Imagine if your city paved a new highway, and announced that only gold-plated cars would be able to run on it due to "compatibility issues". Now, you may not need to use that highway today, but you think "Well, I might want to use that new highway one day, and I imagine that all new highways will require gold-plated cars from now on, so I guess I'll just have to bite the bullet and buy one."
So you go and buy a new gold-plated car, selling your older-but-still-operational car at a loss, and then take your new gold car onto the new highway just to see what it's like. Now imagine as you pull onto that new highway, you see a bunch of other drivers, using the same highway in their older, non-gold-plated cars.
How would you feel?
Ok so it may not be a perfect analogy but, well, you see the highway is software and the car is your computer+OS. Work with me people.
But why is that retarded? Why shouldn't it be the IP owner's legal right to create arbitrary access controls?
Because it criminalises acts that cause no harm.
Uhm, it criminializes acts that cause potential economic harm. Microsoft has every right to pursue income with their IP as they see fit. If they feel they can make the most money by making Halo 2 a Vista-only product, then they should be allowed to do so. Actions taken to subvert and advertise a circumvention of these access controls can most certainly cause economic harm.
I fail to see how.
As an example. If I lived in the US, went and bought a DVD, put it in my laptop and watched it, I'd be a criminal. That's fucking stupid.
What it amounts to is legal protection for trade secrets, albeit in a fairly limited arena.
It is an "access control," though, right? It keeps people with XP from having access to the program. Also you don't need to infringe copyright to fall under this part of the act.
It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services that are used to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works (commonly known as DRM) and criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, even when there is no infringement of copyright itself.
Turns out the DMCA is even more retarded than I thought.
But why is that retarded? Why shouldn't it be the IP owner's legal right to create arbitrary access controls?
Why shouldn't it be the purchaser's right to modify a product they purchased? This has always fallen under fair use before; why should software be any different?
Besides, the DMCA has provisions for reverse-engineering for compatability reasons, so I'm not sure it applies in this case.
That's a good point.
The problem with "the right to modify the products you buy" is that the right can come into conflict with the IP owner's property rights. So which would you say comes out on top?
If I upgraded to Vista because I thought it would be necessary to run Shadowrun, then I could make the argument that this caused me harm.
EXACTLY!
You two have literally stumped me on this point. I could not disagree more and I am finding it difficult to empathize with you and your perspective so I am not sure how to articulate a response.
Imagine if your city paved a new highway, and announced that only gold-plated cars would be able to run on it due to "compatibility issues". Now, you may not need to use that highway today, but you think "Well, I might want to use that new highway one day, and I imagine that all new highways will require gold-plated cars from now on, so I guess I'll just have to bite the bullet and buy one."
So you go and buy a new gold-plated car, selling your older-but-still-operational car at a loss, and then take your new gold car onto the new highway just to see what it's like. Now imagine as you pull onto that new highway, you see a bunch of other drivers, using the same highway in their older, non-gold-plated cars.
How would you feel?
Ok so it may not be a perfect analogy but, well, you see the highway is software and the car is your computer+OS. Work with me people.
Because a highway is infrastructure and a video game is a frivoloty, and besides, people kind of figured that this shit would be easily circumvented as soon as it was announced?
But why is that retarded? Why shouldn't it be the IP owner's legal right to create arbitrary access controls?
Because it criminalises acts that cause no harm.
Uhm, it criminializes acts that cause potential economic harm. Microsoft has every right to pursue income with their IP as they see fit. If they feel they can make the most money by making Halo 2 a Vista-only product, then they should be allowed to do so. Actions taken to subvert and advertise a circumvention of these access controls can most certainly cause economic harm.
I fail to see how.
As an example. If I lived in the US, went and bought a DVD, put it in my laptop and watched it, I'd be a criminal. That's fucking stupid.
What it amounts to is legal protection for trade secrets, albeit in a fairly limited arena.
If I upgraded to Vista because I thought it would be necessary to run Shadowrun, then I could make the argument that this caused me harm.
EXACTLY!
You two have literally stumped me on this point. I could not disagree more and I am finding it difficult to empathize with you and your perspective so I am not sure how to articulate a response.
Imagine if your city paved a new highway, and announced that only gold-plated cars would be able to run on it due to "compatibility issues". Now, you may not need to use that highway today, but you think "Well, I might want to use that new highway one day, and I imagine that all new highways will require gold-plated cars from now on, so I guess I'll just have to bite the bullet and buy one."
So you go and buy a new gold-plated car, selling your older-but-still-operational car at a loss, and then take your new gold car onto the new highway just to see what it's like. Now imagine as you pull onto that new highway, you see a bunch of other drivers, using the same highway in their older, non-gold-plated cars.
How would you feel?
Ok so it may not be a perfect analogy but, well, you see the highway is software and the car is your computer+OS. Work with me people.
Yeah, I cannot really respond to this as an analogy, sorry. There are stark differences between a corporation you buy a product from and a government you are a citizen under.
It is an "access control," though, right? It keeps people with XP from having access to the program. Also you don't need to infringe copyright to fall under this part of the act.
It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services that are used to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works (commonly known as DRM) and criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, even when there is no infringement of copyright itself.
Turns out the DMCA is even more retarded than I thought.
But why is that retarded? Why shouldn't it be the IP owner's legal right to create arbitrary access controls?
Why shouldn't it be the purchaser's right to modify a product they purchased? This has always fallen under fair use before; why should software be any different?
Besides, the DMCA has provisions for reverse-engineering for compatability reasons, so I'm not sure it applies in this case.
That's a good point.
The problem with "the right to modify the products you buy" is that the right can come into conflict with the IP owner's property rights. So which would you say comes out on top?
No, it really can't. The right to modify the products you buy does not extend to making copies (other than a single personal copy for backup, which is currently protected anyway), and certainly doesn't extend to distributing copies without the IP owner's permission. I'm not really getting where the conflict comes in, unless we're talking about all these new "rights" that got bribed into law over the past few years.
The problem with "the right to modify the products you buy" is that the right can come into conflict with the IP owner's property rights. So which would you say comes out on top?
I don't think they do. Modifying something for your own use doesn't affect the IP owner's rights at all. Distributing tools to perform said modification doesn't affect the IP owner's rights, either.
Like other's have said, I'm pretty sure its not illegal, especially in the States.. however it is certainly unethical in my opinion.
In truth, Microsoft's position at the "top" of the PC industry is a detriment to everyone who uses one, I eagerly await the day that Linux is wide spread, secure and easy enough to use that a vast majority of games and software is compatible with it out of the box. I don't want this because I'm some kind of Linux fan boy, never used it, only used Windows, but I think that any company having what essentially boils down to control the PC software and hardware industry is kinda.. I dunno.. bad.
Its their control of the industry that lets them get away with things like this, and the fact that in the US, somewhere along the line, Copywrite Protection went from protecting the rights of the artist or creator, to ripping off the user and binding them into questionable contracts about how and where they can use things they purchased.
I wonder however how an Australian court would judge this Vista requirement and getting around it.. I mean, they already defend the ability to have mod chips because of pointless region coding..
It is an "access control," though, right? It keeps people with XP from having access to the program. Also you don't need to infringe copyright to fall under this part of the act.
It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services that are used to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works (commonly known as DRM) and criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, even when there is no infringement of copyright itself.
Turns out the DMCA is even more retarded than I thought.
But why is that retarded? Why shouldn't it be the IP owner's legal right to create arbitrary access controls?
Why shouldn't it be the purchaser's right to modify a product they purchased? This has always fallen under fair use before; why should software be any different?
Besides, the DMCA has provisions for reverse-engineering for compatability reasons, so I'm not sure it applies in this case.
That's a good point.
The problem with "the right to modify the products you buy" is that the right can come into conflict with the IP owner's property rights. So which would you say comes out on top?
No, it really can't. The right to modify the products you buy does not extend to making copies (other than a single personal copy for backup, which is currently protected anyway), and certainly doesn't extend to distributing copies without the IP owner's permission. I'm not really getting where the conflict comes in, unless we're talking about all these new "rights" that got bribed into law over the past few years.
Well I'm talking about people's belief that they can do what they want with the software they buy. "Right" in quotation marks.
And that was really my point. The property rights of the owner are MUCH stronger than your own desire to modify your property in a way that makes infringement of copyrights possible.
Just a note, the two games in question are DX9 compatible, the Vista restriction was entirely arbitrary, from a technical perspective. This is a distinct issue from using DX10 on XP, which is supposedly possible, but MS apparently has no desire to spend time or money making it backward compatible.
The former appears to be much less of a technological restriction than the latter.
The article linked in the OP seems to confuse the two.
But why is that retarded? Why shouldn't it be the IP owner's legal right to create arbitrary access controls?
Because it criminalises acts that cause no harm.
Uhm, it criminializes acts that cause potential economic harm. Microsoft has every right to pursue income with their IP as they see fit. If they feel they can make the most money by making Halo 2 a Vista-only product, then they should be allowed to do so. Actions taken to subvert and advertise a circumvention of these access controls can most certainly cause economic harm.
I fail to see how.
As an example. If I lived in the US, went and bought a DVD, put it in my laptop and watched it, I'd be a criminal. That's fucking stupid.
What it amounts to is legal protection for trade secrets, albeit in a fairly limited arena.
...What?
What, somebody on the internet missed the whole DeCSS thing?
DVDs are all encrypted with something called CSS, or Content Scrambling System. A while ago, somebody in Norway (shit, he'd have been arrested in America) found out that CSS is, in actuality, trivial to break. He didn't do this to distribute movies over the Internet (which was doing just fine with capture cards anyway); he just wanted to watch movies on his Linux computer, where no "official" DVD playing software existed.
Then the MPAA or DVDCCA or whoever started getting all DMCA-happy all over the internet, although VLC still implements an improved variant of DeCSS anyway, because otherwise they can't play DVDs through it.
It is an "access control," though, right? It keeps people with XP from having access to the program. Also you don't need to infringe copyright to fall under this part of the act.
It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services that are used to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works (commonly known as DRM) and criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, even when there is no infringement of copyright itself.
Turns out the DMCA is even more retarded than I thought.
But why is that retarded? Why shouldn't it be the IP owner's legal right to create arbitrary access controls?
Why shouldn't it be the purchaser's right to modify a product they purchased? This has always fallen under fair use before; why should software be any different?
Besides, the DMCA has provisions for reverse-engineering for compatability reasons, so I'm not sure it applies in this case.
That's a good point.
The problem with "the right to modify the products you buy" is that the right can come into conflict with the IP owner's property rights. So which would you say comes out on top?
I will always morally side with the creator. If Van Gogh wanted to paint something, show it to one person, and then burn it, he would have every right to do so. Is Microsoft Van Gogh? Not exactly, but without Microsoft, Vista wouldn't exist and without Van Gogh, my fictitious painting wouldn't exist.
How is it not the creator's right to do what he wants with his creation?
It's not a perfect analogy either but an operating system is unique in that a bond between creator and end user/purchaser exists after the initial purchase, which is why the laws surrounding it are confusing and complex. How the end user uses the operating system - essentially a conduit - is essential to the creator's continued revenue. There really IS no appropriate analogy. Which is why people need to think about this in a different way.
It is an "access control," though, right? It keeps people with XP from having access to the program. Also you don't need to infringe copyright to fall under this part of the act.
It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services that are used to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works (commonly known as DRM) and criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, even when there is no infringement of copyright itself.
Turns out the DMCA is even more retarded than I thought.
But why is that retarded? Why shouldn't it be the IP owner's legal right to create arbitrary access controls?
Why shouldn't it be the purchaser's right to modify a product they purchased? This has always fallen under fair use before; why should software be any different?
Besides, the DMCA has provisions for reverse-engineering for compatability reasons, so I'm not sure it applies in this case.
That's a good point.
The problem with "the right to modify the products you buy" is that the right can come into conflict with the IP owner's property rights. So which would you say comes out on top?
No, it really can't. The right to modify the products you buy does not extend to making copies (other than a single personal copy for backup, which is currently protected anyway), and certainly doesn't extend to distributing copies without the IP owner's permission. I'm not really getting where the conflict comes in, unless we're talking about all these new "rights" that got bribed into law over the past few years.
Well I'm talking about people's belief that they can do what they want with the software they buy. "Right" in quotation marks.
And that was really my point. The property rights of the owner are MUCH stronger than your own desire to modify your property in a way that makes infringement of copyrights possible.
Okay, we're clearly not getting anywhere here.
There are some rights normally granted to the customer under copyright law, including fair use, first sale, etc. If you buy a book, for example, you can quote bits of it for your research paper (as long as they're cited properly), you can re-sell it without paying royalties to the author, you can rip the pages apart and glue them together in a different order, you can use it to start a fire, and if you want to, you can read the damn thing, to yourself, wherever you want to. These rights have been guaranteed since the inception of copyright law.
Now, ever since the DMCA was passed, we have this new thing called anti-circumvention. Basically, it boils down to this: if a producer of a work decides to add in some kind of access control mechanism that restricts your rights, you aren't allowed to circumvent it, even if you would normally have the right to do whatever it is that you're circumventing for. Basically, the IP holder, instead of going with normal copyright law, can just make up whatever restrictions they think that they can get away with without scaring off customers.
Do you see what I'm getting at now? The rights we had before were just fine, we didn't need to make some new law that says, essentially, "IP holders can change the rights that consumers have however they want without having to bribe Congress first anymore". It's throwing off the balance of rights in favor of the producer.
As an example. If I lived in the US, went and bought a DVD, put it in my laptop and watched it, I'd be a criminal. That's fucking stupid.
What it amounts to is legal protection for trade secrets, albeit in a fairly limited arena.
...What?
I run Ubuntu, and to watch DVDs I use libdvdcss, which "circumvents an access control intended to protect copyright." Hence: criminal under the DMCA, even though I haven't caused any harm.
Regarding the "trade secrets" thing, what I mean is this: DRM and other access control methods rely on some kind of secret. In the case of CSS, the copy protection on DVDs, it relies on Encryption keys. Now these encryption keys were secret, but are discoverable to those with the right tools and abilities. Triviality notwithstanding, the act of finding out what the key is, is illegal.
Similarly, "trade secrets" are things like the recipe for Coca-Cola, which isn't copyrighted or patented, because that would require publishing the recipe. If I was to go and set up a lab, and determine exactly what went into Coke, I could reproduce it, and there would be no legal way to stop me, provided I didn't claim that it was Coca-Cola (because that's trademarked). I could even sell it if I liked.
The DMCA is a means of punishing those who reverse-engineer, even though it's perfectly legal in many other spheres of Industry.
Yeah, I see your point. I think I stated before I'm not really down with the DMCA.
Not every circumvention though is for the sake of a something you would normally have a right to.
And what would you say about circumventions for valid personal use that, when shared, result in widespread copyright infringement?
Then punish those who infringe copyright, not those who use tools that could theoretically allow them to infringe copyright.
What kind of preventative measures can companies take to preserve their IP then? Something other than "we'll just get them after they start infringing and the damage has already been done" is necessary.
It is an "access control," though, right? It keeps people with XP from having access to the program. Also you don't need to infringe copyright to fall under this part of the act.
It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services that are used to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works (commonly known as DRM) and criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, even when there is no infringement of copyright itself.
Turns out the DMCA is even more retarded than I thought.
But why is that retarded? Why shouldn't it be the IP owner's legal right to create arbitrary access controls?
Why shouldn't it be the purchaser's right to modify a product they purchased? This has always fallen under fair use before; why should software be any different?
Besides, the DMCA has provisions for reverse-engineering for compatability reasons, so I'm not sure it applies in this case.
That's a good point.
The problem with "the right to modify the products you buy" is that the right can come into conflict with the IP owner's property rights. So which would you say comes out on top?
No, it really can't. The right to modify the products you buy does not extend to making copies (other than a single personal copy for backup, which is currently protected anyway), and certainly doesn't extend to distributing copies without the IP owner's permission. I'm not really getting where the conflict comes in, unless we're talking about all these new "rights" that got bribed into law over the past few years.
Well I'm talking about people's belief that they can do what they want with the software they buy. "Right" in quotation marks.
And that was really my point. The property rights of the owner are MUCH stronger than your own desire to modify your property in a way that makes infringement of copyrights possible.
Okay, we're clearly not getting anywhere here.
There are some rights normally granted to the customer under copyright law, including fair use, first sale, etc. If you buy a book, for example, you can quote bits of it for your research paper (as long as they're cited properly), you can re-sell it without paying royalties to the author, you can rip the pages apart and glue them together in a different order, you can use it to start a fire, and if you want to, you can read the damn thing, to yourself, wherever you want to. These rights have been guaranteed since the inception of copyright law.
Now, ever since the DMCA was passed, we have this new thing called anti-circumvention. Basically, it boils down to this: if a producer of a work decides to add in some kind of access control mechanism that restricts your rights, you aren't allowed to circumvent it, even if you would normally have the right to do whatever it is that you're circumventing for. Basically, the IP holder, instead of going with normal copyright law, can just make up whatever restrictions they think that they can get away with without scaring off customers.
Do you see what I'm getting at now? The rights we had before were just fine, we didn't need to make some new law that says, essentially, "IP holders can change the rights that consumers have however they want without having to bribe Congress first anymore". It's throwing off the balance of rights in favor of the producer.
a) I believe it actually is illegal to rip out the first few pages of a book (the one that has copyright information on it). Not sure about the rest, but probably not.
b) I don't agree that books and software are economically analagous and I do not agree that the elements of fair use you just detailed should necessarily apply to software merely by virtue of their existence for a pre-existing medium.
Yeah, I see your point. I think I stated before I'm not really down with the DMCA.
Not every circumvention though is for the sake of a something you would normally have a right to.
And what would you say about circumventions for valid personal use that, when shared, result in widespread copyright infringement?
Then punish those who infringe copyright, not those who use tools that could theoretically allow them to infringe copyright.
What kind of preventative measures can companies take to preserve their IP then? Something other than "we'll just get them after they start infringing and the damage has already been done" is necessary.
They can take any preventative measures they like, but I don't think it should be illegal to circumvent those measures. In practice, how are you going to prosecute anyone who circumvents the copy protection, but doesn't distribute it?
a) I believe it actually is illegal to rip out the first few pages of a book (the one that has copyright information on it). Not sure about the rest, but probably not.
Only if you plan to resell it. Same thing as mattress tags (though who would want to get a used mattress? yuck).
Posts
It is an "access control," though, right? It keeps people with XP from having access to the program. Also you don't need to infringe copyright to fall under this part of the act.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/11/28/us_court_ruling_nixes_software/
EXACTLY!
I agree with both Feral and you. This is a legitimate concern. Most retail chains prevent you from returning opened software. Therefore, any relevant contracts should be presented to you before purchase.
I think you need to reevaluate what a "lie" is.
No, possession of a "circumvention device" is criminalized, and stop using "cracking" as some kind of all-inclusive descriptor; the DMCA doesn't use the term anywhere, nor is it well-defined elsewhere.
Good luck with that. Last I checked, playing a shitty FPS wasn't some kind of biological necessity.
Looks like your right:
Turns out the DMCA is even more retarded than I thought.
It definitely prohibits the act of circumvention as well. I just looked it up.
You two have literally stumped me on this point. I could not disagree more and I am finding it difficult to empathize with you and your perspective so I am not sure how to articulate a response.
But why is that retarded? Why shouldn't it be the IP owner's legal right to create arbitrary access controls?
Because it criminalises acts that cause no harm.
EDIT: To refine slightly, It is the right of the content owner to create arbitrary access controls, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal to work around them.
Varies from country to country. In America, a modchip is a banned "circumvention device", but at the same time, nobody's been arrested or sued for owning one yet. In Australia, as long as the console has a region lock, and the modchip circumvents it, it's legal (regardless of other functions).
Harm read: Unnecessary financial loss. That help?
Why shouldn't it be the purchaser's right to modify a product they purchased? This has always fallen under fair use before; why should software be any different?
Besides, the DMCA has provisions for reverse-engineering for compatability reasons, so I'm not sure it applies in this case.
Uhm, it criminializes acts that cause potential economic harm. Microsoft has every right to pursue income with their IP as they see fit. If they feel they can make the most money by making Halo 2 a Vista-only product, then they should be allowed to do so. Actions taken to subvert and advertise a circumvention of these access controls can most certainly cause economic harm.
You are implying that the game is "necessary" otherwise. It's not even that good.
Imagine if your city paved a new highway, and announced that only gold-plated cars would be able to run on it due to "compatibility issues". Now, you may not need to use that highway today, but you think "Well, I might want to use that new highway one day, and I imagine that all new highways will require gold-plated cars from now on, so I guess I'll just have to bite the bullet and buy one."
So you go and buy a new gold-plated car, selling your older-but-still-operational car at a loss, and then take your new gold car onto the new highway just to see what it's like. Now imagine as you pull onto that new highway, you see a bunch of other drivers, using the same highway in their older, non-gold-plated cars.
How would you feel?
Ok so it may not be a perfect analogy but, well, you see the highway is software and the car is your computer+OS. Work with me people.
I fail to see how.
As an example. If I lived in the US, went and bought a DVD, put it in my laptop and watched it, I'd be a criminal. That's fucking stupid.
What it amounts to is legal protection for trade secrets, albeit in a fairly limited arena.
That's a good point.
The problem with "the right to modify the products you buy" is that the right can come into conflict with the IP owner's property rights. So which would you say comes out on top?
Because a highway is infrastructure and a video game is a frivoloty, and besides, people kind of figured that this shit would be easily circumvented as soon as it was announced?
...What?
Yeah, I cannot really respond to this as an analogy, sorry. There are stark differences between a corporation you buy a product from and a government you are a citizen under.
No, it really can't. The right to modify the products you buy does not extend to making copies (other than a single personal copy for backup, which is currently protected anyway), and certainly doesn't extend to distributing copies without the IP owner's permission. I'm not really getting where the conflict comes in, unless we're talking about all these new "rights" that got bribed into law over the past few years.
I don't think they do. Modifying something for your own use doesn't affect the IP owner's rights at all. Distributing tools to perform said modification doesn't affect the IP owner's rights, either.
In truth, Microsoft's position at the "top" of the PC industry is a detriment to everyone who uses one, I eagerly await the day that Linux is wide spread, secure and easy enough to use that a vast majority of games and software is compatible with it out of the box. I don't want this because I'm some kind of Linux fan boy, never used it, only used Windows, but I think that any company having what essentially boils down to control the PC software and hardware industry is kinda.. I dunno.. bad.
Its their control of the industry that lets them get away with things like this, and the fact that in the US, somewhere along the line, Copywrite Protection went from protecting the rights of the artist or creator, to ripping off the user and binding them into questionable contracts about how and where they can use things they purchased.
I wonder however how an Australian court would judge this Vista requirement and getting around it.. I mean, they already defend the ability to have mod chips because of pointless region coding..
Well I'm talking about people's belief that they can do what they want with the software they buy. "Right" in quotation marks.
And that was really my point. The property rights of the owner are MUCH stronger than your own desire to modify your property in a way that makes infringement of copyrights possible.
The former appears to be much less of a technological restriction than the latter.
The article linked in the OP seems to confuse the two.
What, somebody on the internet missed the whole DeCSS thing?
DVDs are all encrypted with something called CSS, or Content Scrambling System. A while ago, somebody in Norway (shit, he'd have been arrested in America) found out that CSS is, in actuality, trivial to break. He didn't do this to distribute movies over the Internet (which was doing just fine with capture cards anyway); he just wanted to watch movies on his Linux computer, where no "official" DVD playing software existed.
Then the MPAA or DVDCCA or whoever started getting all DMCA-happy all over the internet, although VLC still implements an improved variant of DeCSS anyway, because otherwise they can't play DVDs through it.
I will always morally side with the creator. If Van Gogh wanted to paint something, show it to one person, and then burn it, he would have every right to do so. Is Microsoft Van Gogh? Not exactly, but without Microsoft, Vista wouldn't exist and without Van Gogh, my fictitious painting wouldn't exist.
How is it not the creator's right to do what he wants with his creation?
It's not a perfect analogy either but an operating system is unique in that a bond between creator and end user/purchaser exists after the initial purchase, which is why the laws surrounding it are confusing and complex. How the end user uses the operating system - essentially a conduit - is essential to the creator's continued revenue. There really IS no appropriate analogy. Which is why people need to think about this in a different way.
Okay, we're clearly not getting anywhere here.
There are some rights normally granted to the customer under copyright law, including fair use, first sale, etc. If you buy a book, for example, you can quote bits of it for your research paper (as long as they're cited properly), you can re-sell it without paying royalties to the author, you can rip the pages apart and glue them together in a different order, you can use it to start a fire, and if you want to, you can read the damn thing, to yourself, wherever you want to. These rights have been guaranteed since the inception of copyright law.
Now, ever since the DMCA was passed, we have this new thing called anti-circumvention. Basically, it boils down to this: if a producer of a work decides to add in some kind of access control mechanism that restricts your rights, you aren't allowed to circumvent it, even if you would normally have the right to do whatever it is that you're circumventing for. Basically, the IP holder, instead of going with normal copyright law, can just make up whatever restrictions they think that they can get away with without scaring off customers.
Do you see what I'm getting at now? The rights we had before were just fine, we didn't need to make some new law that says, essentially, "IP holders can change the rights that consumers have however they want without having to bribe Congress first anymore". It's throwing off the balance of rights in favor of the producer.
I run Ubuntu, and to watch DVDs I use libdvdcss, which "circumvents an access control intended to protect copyright." Hence: criminal under the DMCA, even though I haven't caused any harm.
Regarding the "trade secrets" thing, what I mean is this: DRM and other access control methods rely on some kind of secret. In the case of CSS, the copy protection on DVDs, it relies on Encryption keys. Now these encryption keys were secret, but are discoverable to those with the right tools and abilities. Triviality notwithstanding, the act of finding out what the key is, is illegal.
Similarly, "trade secrets" are things like the recipe for Coca-Cola, which isn't copyrighted or patented, because that would require publishing the recipe. If I was to go and set up a lab, and determine exactly what went into Coke, I could reproduce it, and there would be no legal way to stop me, provided I didn't claim that it was Coca-Cola (because that's trademarked). I could even sell it if I liked.
The DMCA is a means of punishing those who reverse-engineer, even though it's perfectly legal in many other spheres of Industry.
Not every circumvention though is for the sake of a something you would normally have a right to.
And what would you say about circumventions for valid personal use that, when shared, result in widespread copyright infringement?
Then punish those who infringe copyright, not those who use tools that could theoretically allow them to infringe copyright.
What kind of preventative measures can companies take to preserve their IP then? Something other than "we'll just get them after they start infringing and the damage has already been done" is necessary.
a) I believe it actually is illegal to rip out the first few pages of a book (the one that has copyright information on it). Not sure about the rest, but probably not.
b) I don't agree that books and software are economically analagous and I do not agree that the elements of fair use you just detailed should necessarily apply to software merely by virtue of their existence for a pre-existing medium.
They can take any preventative measures they like, but I don't think it should be illegal to circumvent those measures. In practice, how are you going to prosecute anyone who circumvents the copy protection, but doesn't distribute it?
Only if you plan to resell it. Same thing as mattress tags (though who would want to get a used mattress? yuck).