Category: Copyright

Licensing and ownership

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?

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.”

Linus, GPL, and DRM Hardware

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.

Copyright to restrict competition

A recent remark from the Microsoft VP of the Windows Media division reveals copyright’s growth into an anti-competitive tool:

The intention is to reduce the number of licensors to a manageable level, to lock out “hobbyists” and other entities that Microsoft doesn’t want to have to trouble itself with.

Essentially, the licensing of their copyrighted Digital Rights Management is knowingly being used to keep developers from developing innovative uses based on their product.
Yes, this is perfectly within their rights under the law. But one has to wonder how this is “promoting progress for the useful arts.”
Old school Microsoft might have realized that these hobbyists were just the types that used to drive advancing the features of their product (even if was through buy-outs).