So somebody has finally cracked the code needed to remove copy protection from all high-definition (HD) DVDs, and in a move that's been described by some as "liberating" they've posted it all over the 'net. Download junkies can now freely copy and redistribute any HD-DVD they like, and no one would be the wiser. Hardly surprising is that the HD-DVD Consortium has declared this a criminal act, and more than one website has removed the code from message boards and blog posts.
Digg.com, however, has chosen to allow the code to remain on its website in a dubious effort to fight a "way for big business to gouge individuals." ABCNews calls the decision "irresponsible" and even "craven", saying that Digg's founder should have stood up to his customers and protect the Consortium's trade secrets. I believe, though, that they've missed the point entirely.
The ABCNews article talks about patents, the First Amendment, and the value of information, but I think it's all really a lot simpler than that. When you, as a consumer, purchase a CD, DVD, book, magazine, newspaper, or any other type of media, you enter into a voluntary contract with the media's publisher which states that by purchasing the item you agree not to copy its contents for redistribution. If you then copy and redistribute the contents in a manner that violates the contract you've committed a crime...a breach of contract. That's it...period.
On another note, I have no opinion on what Kevin Rose should have done about the content that was posted on his website, but trotting out the First Amendment as an attempt to protect oneself from retribution for wrongdoing is crap. The First Amendment doesn't allow you to say whatever you want to say with impunity. Words can constitute a crime just as easily as actions can, and the person(s) who broke the copy protection code committed a breach of contract by doing so. The fact that they then turned around and shouted it to the world doesn't absolve them from the crime or bestow upon them some magical protection from recourse by those from whom they have stolen.
4 comments:
Umm... how does revealing an encoding scheme constitute a crime? Perhaps *using* it to illegally resell content that isn't yours is theft, but the act of revealing a way isn't.
If I showed you how to rebuild a motor to remove the gas governor and you then killed somebody while speeding, have I committed a crime by sharing knowledge?
If I show you how to reduce the sound signature of a firearm by using a 2-litre bottle and you then use it to reduce your chances of being caught in a violent act, have I committed a crime?
In my mind, this sort of thing falls into the 'attractive nuisance' category (a law designed to absolve the individual of responsibility of their actions). Much as your post about the porn-monger sending someone a targeted email, the rapist still chose to act on his desires.
The concept of fair use has largely been eroded by Congress at the urgings of the media industry and those who don't want you to be able to compete in their market. The DMCA is a prime example of that, as is the seemingly endless extensions of copyright that folks like Disney have brought about or how about monitor manufacturers (read TVs) and Microsloth making arrangements that you can't put anything through that HDMI port without a licensed piece of software? Now I can't make my own content? What about folks whose LCDs came out before HDMI was installed? No home media center for you, sigh. That's one of the things the code revelation makes available to the user: being able to use your equipment for its intended purpose.
As an aside, the keys revealed in the code have been cancelled and only movies manufactured with those keys are vulnerable. Since shortly after the code was posted, manufacturers changed the key, sent cancellation orders and rekeys to connected devices and are implementing a hardware change to limit the chances of a repeat in future products.
-CB
Oh yeah - and the Congressmen who passed those laws have probably seen a great deal of compensation (in varying forms) for their support of them, giving greater advantage to the corporate side of our 'free market' economy.
-CB
I take your point, and, in part, I agree with you. Sharing information isn't a crime unless you're under contract to not reveal (or in this case even attempt to obtain by reverse engineering) said information. In the examples as you present them there is no crime on your part. The individual who then uses that information to violate the rights of another is responsible for his or her actions. Publishing the exact schematic of a patented item doesn't constitute a crime, but using that schematic to create copies of the device for sale is a crime, as it violates the property rights of the patentor...the right to prosper by the fruits of his labor.
Technically, the concept of fair use applies only to limited reproduction of copyrighted material for a specific set of purposes. In my opinion it's a bogus law anyway, as the acceptable use of any "intellectual property" is a matter to be decided by its creator, regardless of how it's recorded, transmitted, or reproduced. The creator of said property sells or redistributes it at his or her whim and is free to place whatever restrictions on its use that he or she sees fit. If the consumer finds these restrictions disagreeable he is free to abstain from buying it.
The producer of any form of media is under no obligation to ensure that everyone is able to use it. Producers of CDs shouldn't be required to produce the same content on cassette tapes so that those without CD players could listen to the album. Publishers who produce Blu-Ray DVDs are in no way obligated to ensure that they can be played in a standard DVD player. By the same token, there's no legitimate requirement to ensure that the cable or other interface used to connect the source to the display will transmit any signal the user desires.
None of this means I like copy protection. It's a pain in the ass. It creates a great deal of inconvenience, but so do rapidly evolving technologies. The creators of HD and Blu-Ray DVD technology were smart to make the players for those formats backward compatible with standard DVDs, as consumer response would most likely have been sluggish had consumers been required to replace their DVD collections or keep two different players. There was, however, no ethical or legal obligation to do so...only the promise of higher profits through greater satisfaction of consumer wants. The RIAA and MPAA have adopted a business model that depends a great deal on its ability to sue its customers, rather than embracing technologies that will better protect their interests without the ridiculous inconveniences to consumers. The market continues to punish them for this strategy, though they are seemingly too stupid to see the forest for the trees.
I'm sure you're right that those in Congress who have ensured the passage of the laws that have created the current copyright and intellectual property environment have been well compensated by the companies for whom they have eased the pressure of competition. Therein lies part of the problem with government power in the marketplace...as long as they have it to sell it will continue to be bought. I imagine the media landscape would be very different and many works a great deal more easily accessible if this were not the case.
Post a Comment