On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 18:59 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > > In the same way, the TiVo box can be used by the owner for its original > > purpose, and the owner is welcome to *attempt* to adapt it at their own > > risk. > > It is my understanding that the DMCA (and the EUCD implementations > here in Europe) may make this illegal if anti-circumvention measures > are applied by the vendor. Is that wrong?
First, let us be clear that the DMCA issue is a separate issue from the TPM issue. The two interact, but they can also be considered separately. Second, I have not read the EUCD regulations, so don't assume that what I say will apply to that. As I understand matters, you are correct, but not absolutely correct. DMCA does not prohibit me from adapting the device to a new purpose in general. It specifically prohibits me from making adaptations that would circumvent the encryption measures of the original device. DMCA does not prohibit me from removing the encryption chip, or from using the existing encryption chip in a way that does not circumvent the original protections. DMCA does not prevent me from re-burning the flash of the linksys media device (DSM-320). Alert: The following paragraphs do not attempt to consider "moral outrage" in connection with DMCA. The DMCA prohibitions are approximately comparable to prohibitions concerning my main electric box in my house. By law, only a licensed electrician can connect new power wiring to the box. The analogy is not perfect, because there is nothing comparable to a "DMCA Circumvention License" (well, maybe there is: the research exception). The point that I am trying to make is that in both cases there are regulatory constraints on the lawful actions of the owner. There are also laws involving proper use of a car, or (in many jurisdictions) fireworks, or storage of flammable or toxic substances. Given this, it seems to me that our objection to DMCA cannot be grounded in the theory that regulation per se narrows freedoms. Regulation certainly *does* narrow freedoms. Ideally (and in all of the cases I have mentioned *including* DMCA) it seeks to establish or restore a balance of interests among parties. Individual freedom is sacrificed for the sake of this rebalancing of interests. Our objection to DMCA must instead be based on the fact that it compromises fundamental freedoms in an *unbalanced* way: 1. It enables the balkanization of public material. 2. It makes no distinction between circumvention of lawfully "owned" content vs. circumvention involving public domain material where control is being improperly asserted. That is: it criminalizes acts that are cannot rationally be considered criminal on any common sense basis. 3. It operates on a doctrine of "presumed guilt" -- an unsubstantiated complaint against a website can force the ISP or server provider to block it or shut it down, and there is no effective recourse against fraudulent complaints. 4. In some implementations -- notably many digital cameras -- it denies copying authority even to the *creator* of a work. 5. It effectively (through technical means) defies the quid pro quo that has been embodied in copyright law. [Current copyright durations are a disgrace, but they *are* an attempt at a quid pro quo.] This is *especially* bad in combination with (2). This list is certainly not exhaustive. On all of these grounds, DMCA is bad law. It is a hammer that has been applied with excessive force to protect the interests of a small number of individuals at the cost of denying many valid interests of society at large. In my opinion, this is true even if we do NOT begin with the assumption that digital information should in principle be free to copy once published. I do not believe that the same is true for TPM. The problem with TPM is that the one widely publicized application is DRM. In discussions on this list, we have identified a number of scenarios where TPM protects the interests of the *customer*. TPM per se is merely a mechanism for mechanically embedding certain contract terms. Some of those contracts are socially bad, some are socially neutral, and some are socially positive. There does not appear to be any technical means for differentiating among these. But arguing against TPM because of the single example of DRM does not strike me as a sound approach. In principle, it is a good thing that parties to a contract should be able to verify compliance. DRM is an unfortunate perversion of this technical capability. shap _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
