Monthly Archive for February, 2006

Page 2 of 3

More non-transferability

Published on February 17, 2006 in Copyright and Mass Communication Law. 0 Comments

This site is reporting that Microsoft recently changed their Windows licensing agreement (EULA) to stipulate that a change of motherboard is equivalent to purchasing a new computer, thus requiring the consumer to purchase an additional Windows license. First, it’s tough to tell if this is actually true (no second independent source here) Edit: this has been an existing policy for OEM and educational license; here’s the google cache for the retail EULA which does not have this limitation.

However, this still provides an excellent example of purchasing a physical copyrighted work, and being left unable to fully exercise what seems to be reasonable (a computer upgrade) because of licensing. Someone buys a cd with a program on it (albeit at a discounted price) and then is legally bound not to do what they might have had if it were a music cd (selling it, making a backup, etc.). What rights should one have when they purchase a physical work? …and should this be distinguished from buying a digital work.
Interestingly enough, this post brought me somewhere I’ve never been before: the Microsoft Windows homepage. It’s interesting that there’s very little in the line of marketing (no feature lists or things like one finds on the Apple OS X homepage). I guess when you have a near monopoly :)

Licensing and ownership

Published on February 16, 2006 in Copyright and Mass Communication Law. 0 Comments

Along the same lines as the last post about fair use of something that one physically owns is the issue of licensing…

While (slowly) studing for prelims, I’ve been reading about The Future of the Book. Many of the issues considered here revolve around the question “what will we need physical books for, now that we have electronic media.” For one thing, books fit into this model of “you bought it, it’s yours,” where one owns a physical book and can reasonably do whatever they choose with it: from reading, to annotating, to ripping it up. However, electronic media are almost never bought, instead they are licensed–meaning you never really own what you paid for. For example, it’s conceivable that a publisher could include a licensing clause which prevented an owner from reselling their work, essentially circumventing the “first-sale doctrine” discussed earlier. Mark that one on the side against electronic media.

I would again argue that to create a resonable, or perhaps more accurately, logical copyright landscape, users need something they can conceivably own. This is the least that the law can do, if we are all expected to follow other restrictive digital copyright rules.

Fair Use?

Published on February 16, 2006 in Copyright and Mass Communication Law. 0 Comments

It appears that the RIAA is now saying that ripping a CD is not a fair use. In some ways, I think I agree. By classifying this use and that use as fair or not fair, we run the risk of creating a copyright framework which is fragmented and difficult for the average person to make sense of. Instead of letting the law enter so deeply into our lives and our interactions with technology, it might be wise to have personal use be off limits for legal action. Copyright ideals like the threatened “first-sale doctrine” (which gives one an unlimited right to sell a work they already owned–and threatened because of Digital Rights Management which limits one’s ability to transfer ownership) may serve as a precedent for conceiving of copyright in this way.

I would call this framework: “You own it, it’s yours.”

Hearing on “Net Neutrality”

Published on February 9, 2006 in Internet Neutrality. 0 Comments

The Senate committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation recently held a hearing on the neutrality, or end to end, principle as it will apply to new laws regulating broadband Internet access. Perhaps not surprisingly, Vint Cerf and Larry Lessig both showed up to defend the end to end principle.
What struck me was the fact that, watching this video archive of the hearing, on a non-neutral internet it might be possible that invaluable modern access to government such as this may be lessened on a non-neutral net. If the regulatory infrastructure is changed so that certain entities or applications are given priority over others, it’s conceivable that even a government could have diminished access. What’s worse is that citizens who lack Internet access are deprived of the ability to view resources such as this in the first place.

Linus, GPL, and DRM Hardware

Published on February 3, 2006 in Copyright. 0 Comments

Linux kernel creator Linux Torvalds is clarifying his opposition to GNU 3.0 (which is a new version of the license which protects many open source software applications). He offers an interesting perspective that DRM of content is more dangerous than that of hardware because (it seems) people will want to be able to manipulate content and will find DRM protected works overly restrictive.

If enough interesting content is licensed that way, DRM eventually becomes marginalized. Yes, it takes decades, but that’s really no different at all from how the GPL works. The GPL has taken decades, and it hasn’t “marginalized” commercial proprietary software yet, but it’s gotten to the point where fewer people at least _worry_ about it.

As long as you expect Disney to feed your brain and just sit there on your couch, Disney & co will always be able to control the content you see. DRM is the smallest part of it – the crap we see and hear every day (regardless of any protection) is a much bigger issue.

The argument then takes a problematic turn towards why DRM for software is OK: because hardware locks are essentially not a software problem. The fact that a system may technologically ensure that rights management is present and enforced is an issue on which to fight with hardware vendors.

Sure, DRM may mean that you can not _install_ or _run_ your changes on somebody else’s hardware. But it in no way changes the fact that you got all the source code, and you can make changes (and use their changes) to it. That requirement has always been there, even with plain GPLv2. You have the source.

The difference? The hardware may only run signed kernels. The fact that the hardware is closed is a _hardware_ license issue. Not a software license issue. I’d suggest you take it up with your hardware vendor, and quite possibly just decide to not buy the hardware. Vote with your feet.

The problem in this argument is that he forgets the power of law. Previous legislative attempts to mandate the use of DRM in all hardware would make it impossible for consumers to “vote with their feet” and select non-DRM hardware.