Thoughts

Okay, back on topic. As I was saying, I think that the FSF and the GNU project are very important to maintaining an open and vibrant industry in technology and so I tend to agree with the comments below. I also believe that credit be given where credit is due, however, this is where it gets tricky. In 1998 the DMCA was passed, this, in general applied copyright and patent laws to the digital arena, while adding new provisions to stop people from circumventing protection schemes. Unfortunately, the DMCA is overly broad and is being used in numerous cases to crack down on legitimate research and development of competing technologies, Dr. Felten's case just being one of them. The problem is both with the broadness of the law, but also of the threat of litigation that it brings. In fact, several of the cases being brought to court on the DMCA are being dismissed or overturned by higher courts, however, as the letter from Dr. Felten shows, the cost of engaging in the litigation alone can keep people from publishing works. The biggest example of a legal battle that has not gone well for the side of the RIAA or MPAA is the DeCSS case of Jon Lech Johansen of Norway. Even in California the DVD CCA, a group of entertainment and technology companies, has backed down. Anyway, the only problems I really have with the law come from its very broad terms and its use as a threatening stick, regardless of the actual feasibility of the case. I was having this argument with R from shigaraki, and I do see his side of it, as someone who is planning to publish in scientific journals. However, I don't want my publishing to be threatened by legal action, as I doubt I will have the money to deal with it. There were a lot of things I was uncertain of during the argument, as it has been several years since I've studied digital rights management. I mean, I did write an API for DRM in 2001 and so I had to be quite familiar with the terms and the law. I knew I had problems with it, but wasn't entirely certain what they were, but now, after a bit of research again, I have rediscovered what they are. There are, of course, other things involved, such as the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act which further threaten legitimate and "fair use" practices. I think this letter by the ACM puts it very well, "Any further legislative action -- such as the SSSCA -- which focuses on constraining or outlawing technology instead of penalizing behavior can only serve to weaken our educational systems, impede our technological dominance, and interfere with our electronic security. Anyway, I think that about sums up what I think about that for now. I'm not going to say I have it figured out, but I wanted to let those of you who read it know that R, I am not going to dismiss your point of view. You made me do some searching and I found what I needed to know. It wasn't that any of the examples I gave were in fact illegal by the DMCA, it is okay to reverse engineer to develop an interoperable system (DeCSS), just that it can be threatened by legal action. I hope also that I made you do the same.

In other, lighter news, Aku Ender apparently had a rippin' show last Friday. You can read about it at his place.