Krell
February 20th, 2006, 08:21 PM
[/URL] Contributed by [URL="http://www.techdirt.com/search.pl?author=Mike"]Mike (http://techdirt.com/search.pl?topic=Legal) on Monday, February 20th, 2006 @ 05:20PM
from the and-doesn't-that-say-something? dept.
Tim Lee has started up a very interesting discussion that deserves a lot more attention. The specific details focus on disagreements among various thinkers concerning whether or not copy protection mechanisms represent a private system for protecting intellectual property, or one backed by governments. However, the much more interesting sub-plot in the article is just how closely attached the DMCA law is to copy protection (http://www.techliberation.com/archives/036822.php).
While some like to argue that the two are entirely separate, and copy protection is simply a private mechanism -- it's worth noting that those are the same people who are so vehement against any change to the DMCA concerning things like circumventing copy protection technologies.
This view has always struck me as odd among groups who talk about how much they support less government in favor of market forces -- because it's essentially supporting the need for government to step in and repeatedly grant monopolies where they may not be needed. No one wants to take away the right of any company to use copy protection should they choose to. Instead, many of us simply see copy protection as a bad business decision, likely to cause more harm than benefits. If that's the case, though, why should it need so much government protection in the form of the DMCA, that appears to take away many of the rights people had in previous generations?
http://techdirt.com/articles/20060220/1719219_F.shtml
.
from the and-doesn't-that-say-something? dept.
Tim Lee has started up a very interesting discussion that deserves a lot more attention. The specific details focus on disagreements among various thinkers concerning whether or not copy protection mechanisms represent a private system for protecting intellectual property, or one backed by governments. However, the much more interesting sub-plot in the article is just how closely attached the DMCA law is to copy protection (http://www.techliberation.com/archives/036822.php).
While some like to argue that the two are entirely separate, and copy protection is simply a private mechanism -- it's worth noting that those are the same people who are so vehement against any change to the DMCA concerning things like circumventing copy protection technologies.
This view has always struck me as odd among groups who talk about how much they support less government in favor of market forces -- because it's essentially supporting the need for government to step in and repeatedly grant monopolies where they may not be needed. No one wants to take away the right of any company to use copy protection should they choose to. Instead, many of us simply see copy protection as a bad business decision, likely to cause more harm than benefits. If that's the case, though, why should it need so much government protection in the form of the DMCA, that appears to take away many of the rights people had in previous generations?
http://techdirt.com/articles/20060220/1719219_F.shtml
.