Title from the article. Interesting article, with some good words from our DRM-free favorite Cory Doctorow.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/40754848
Title from the article. Interesting article, with some good words from our DRM-free favorite Cory Doctorow.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/40754848
Removing DRM has always been “illegal”.
However: German concentration camps were legal, while families protecting Jewish citizens from being taken to said concentration camps was strictly illegal.
What’s legal is not always right (ethically and morally), and what’s right is not always legal. Remember that.
I’d like to clarify that removing DRM does lie in a grey zone in many countries, including in the US due to some court rulings. In some countries the right to make a backup of your e-book might have priority over copyright law for example.
Sure, but companies who employ DRM have argued against that grey area since DRM was a thing. Something something IP/copyright/licensing/whatever bullshit… IMO: fuck you, I bought it, I own it, eat shit.
Correct… How are they going to enforce their “property” rights when I do it at home?
These corpo parasites are delulu hence why I stopped spending money on media.
Get fucked.
The DMCA makes it pretty clear that “Circumvention of Technological Protection Measures” is illegal. There are no exceptions for whether you own or redistribute the content in question.
I don’t care what some stupid US law says. It doesn’t apply to me.
That’s great. This conversation was about the US.
It really wasn’t.
You tried to make it about the US when the topic is about a company that operates internationally, that’s what.
Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised is breaking national law in many countries with their one-size-fits-all approach.
But I’d rather just not give a crap about that and just keep pirating my books.
It really was. Do you not know what the DMCA is? It’s US law.
It’s not needed.
If another law says you have a right to create backups of digital content you own, then two laws are in conflict. Why would dcma have precedence?
No idea about US, but in some countries it would be up to judges, and with enough rulings it would be settled one way or another.
At least here in Germany the bypassing of DRM is so legal they don’t even try to get you for it. The only thing they ever go after nowadays is distributing and consuming that cracked content (get logless VPN and that problem solves itself). But if you go and rip Netflix movies for your own enjoyment they have no leg to stand on in court unless you distribute it.
Aussie copyright law gives us the right to circumvent protections in order to make copies to watch on a device the original can’t be played on.
Linux out of the box is remarkably incompatible with DRM protected content and so makes an excellent thing on which one might want to watch, listen to, or read a thing
You don’t happen to know what whereabouts in legislation that’s detailed, do you?
Circumvention: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s116an.html
That law doesn’t exist and that’s not how law works. Law does not specify what is allowed, only what isn’t. Breaking encryption isn’t.
It exists in Sweden. We are allowed to make private copies of movies, music and whatever. If I want to rip a CD and give it to my family and friends that is 100% legal. But it’s not legal to sell the copies.
Didn’t realize the DMCA applied in Sweden.
Many European countries (and companies there in) listen to and respect DMCA takedown requests and my point is that it does not apply to individuals. So yes, it applies in Sweden too. Maybe after Trump is done destroying the diplomatic relationships with Europe we can finally start not giving a shit about DMCA.
We’re not talking about takedown requests, we’re talking about bypassing DRM.
What are you talking about? Law absolutely can specify that something is allowed.
The right for a private good exists. In the same way different countries exist, different views in copyright and the right to backup exists.
We were talking about laws, not rights or views.
Sometimes doing something illegal is anti-social behavior. Sometimes it’s anti-authoritarian behavior. These are not the same thing.