[WEB4LIB] Re: Computers in Libraries and the death of copyright

[Daniel Messer]

I respectfully disagree.

Law is a matter of enforcement in and of itself. If one makes a law they must 
also make provisions to enforece this law. The law and enforcement are one in 
the same. If you don't need a law, you don't need enforcement. Consequently, 
if you do need a law, then you need some type of enforcement.

If you don't believe that copyright is secondarily of enforcement, check out 
the latest on Digital Millenium Copyright Act. This act basically states that 
it is illegal for someone to backwards engineer a copyright method. The 
latest example of this is DeCSS, a method of decrypting the encoding used on 
DVDs. The Motion Picture Association of America and many other organizations 
allied with them have shoved this law down the throats of Americans who dare 
to look at the way the MPAA stores information on a DVD. Websites have been 
sued for posting the source code to crack DeCSS because the MPAA says that 
DeCSS could lead to copying of DVDs. The opperative word is COULD. DeCSS is 
not used to copy DVDs, it is merely used to play them. Almost any CD-ROM on 
any computer could play DVDs with this system, but the MPAA doesn't like that 
because it's not playing by their rules.

And also, if copyright isn't enforcement, then why is the Recording Industry 
Artists of America (RIAA) trying so hard to destroy Napster? I'll tell you 
why with one simple word... MONEY. Never mind that sales of CDs have 
skyrocketed since Napster's inception. Never mind that economists can point 
to this boom in music sales to around the time Napster came into being. Never 
mind that the RIAA makes billions of dollars a year from CD sales. They are 
suing Napster because Napster "violates copyright laws." Sounds like a pretty 
big enforcement ethic to me and morals and ethics are really given amiss 
here. What I'm saying is that the format that Napster uses for songs, MP3 
compression, is taken off of CDs. I point to the RIAA vs Napster as proof 
that audio CDs have PLENTY of anti-piracy provisions and millions of people 
do habitually rip off audio CDs. And what law is the RIAA using? None other 
than our friendly neighbourhood Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

The DMCAA, at its core, states that it is unlawful to reverse engineer a 
product for any reason. Which means, folks, that if you go through the code 
to a Windows programme and find that it regularly sends personal information 
about you back to someone without your prior knowledge or permission, your 
reward for protecting the privacy of others could be a hefty fine, jail time, 
or both. While this hasn't happened, there was a scandal recently where a 
Microsoft programme was indeed doing just that. It would never have been 
found without reverse engineering.

There's no disrespect intended here. But I think ethics and law have been 
kept apart for a long time and trying to tie the two together anymore is 
difficult at best. The DMCAA is highly unethical. Does it protect the people? 
No. It protects mighty multi-billion dollar corporations from some smart 
person who can see through their codes and encryptions and find flaws or 
unlawfulness on the part of the manufacturer. Is this ethical? No. Is it 
legal? Yes, it's 100% legal. And I have a big problem with that. Recent 
developments in copyright law and enforcement are disturbing to say the 
least. A judge has ruled that it is illegal for me or anyone else to post the 
source code for DeCSS on the Internet. That is nothing but violation of the 
First Amendment right to free speech. Watch out folks, if they can say that 
source code is not protected speech, then the next thing to go will be the 
printed word.

Dan


Walt_Crawford at notes.rlg.org said:
 
> Copyright is a matter of law and ethics, and only secondarily of
> enforcement. What I see from Gary M. and Roy T. (sigh) is a reversal--a
> universal equivalent of the nasty little driver's saying "If there are no
> cops, there is no speed limit." In other words: if you can't _prevent_ me
> from taking intellectual property without compensation, then it's jus' fine
> for me and anyone else to do that.
> 
> Most of us (outside Manhattan) have door locks that can be thwarted within
> 15 seconds. I guess we're saying that it's reasonable for anyone to steal
> our stuff: after all, it can't be universally prevented. Heck, most murders
> are never solved: I guess "Murder is OK." And if I drop my wallet with $200
> inside, I should _expect_ you to take the money and the credit cards:
> there's nothing to prevent it. For that matter, I've been in a monogamous,
> faithful relationship (marriage, in this case) for more than 23 years, even
> though there's clearly no plausible chance that I'd be arrested for
> adultery. What could I be thinking?
> 
> Since when did ethics and law equal enforceability? Roy, what the heck are
> you really saying here? That we who write for money (I suspect LJ pays you
> for your columns) are living in a dream world, and should move to the Brave
> New World where all intellectual work is free for the taking?
> 
> Sorry. I don't buy it. There will always be pirates; there always have
> been. Audio CDs have essentially no anti-piracy provisions--but most people
> don't habitually rip off audio CDs--because it's wrong, not simply because
> it's (no longer) inconvenient. What I'm seeing here is a grotesque paradigm
> shift:
-- 
The subject in question...
-------------
Daniel Messer
Technologies Instructor
Yakima Valley Regional Library
dmesser at yvrls.lib.wa.us
509-452-8541 ext 712
102 N 3rd St  Yakima, WA  98901
-----------
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
                                         -Hunter S. Thompson