
Lawsuit could be the beginning of the end for DRM - nomanisanisland
https://www.defectivebydesign.org/blog/lawsuit_could_be_beginning_end_drm
======
throwaway1974
If it was not for DRM removal tools I would have recently been screwed by
Amazon, here is my story:

I was a longtime customer (easily 10 years or more I think) and have bought
every version of Kindle to have come out over the years (unfortunately they
break easily) and have build up a large collection

Recently I replaced the debit card on my account as the old one expired,
placed and order for a digital game code for my xbox one (done it many times
before) and bang my account was nuked. Yes I used 2fa no my account was not
hacked by anyone. No I never abused their refund policy as some people do. Yes
I tried resetting my password and get an email about password change BUT still
can not login as it errors out.

I must have rang dozen of times (chat doesnt work if you dont have an account)
and send as many emails to everyone from support to jeff@amazon.com
(apparently this is a shortcut to get attention to your case) in all cases was
told an "account specialist" would get in contact, yadda yadda but no luck.

If it was not for deDRM tools (which I started to use after the 1984
"incident" few years back) all of my books would have been unreadable now, had
to deregister the kindle too since account doesnt work.

I wonder how many people who are not as tech savy get screwed and are left
with nothing.

~~~
Yetanfou
Don't rely on any 'official' solution to maintain your digital library as
those are sure to stop working in one way (company goes bankrupt or gets
bought) or another (planned obsolescence, forced upgrade, etc) in a few years
time. Configure your own using one of the existing tools; if you use Owncloud
or Nextcloud you could use my OPDS Catalog app
([https://apps.owncloud.com/content/show.php?content=168132](https://apps.owncloud.com/content/show.php?content=168132)),
possibly combined with Reader
([https://apps.owncloud.com/content/show.php/Reader+(ebook+rea...](https://apps.owncloud.com/content/show.php/Reader+\(ebook+reader\)?content=167127))
for when you happen to be without a reader device.

Try to send the industry a signal by refusing to buy encumbered books (DRM,
proprietary formats, etc). If you feel like you absolutely must have a book
which is only available in an encumbered format I'd suggest you convert it to
an open and unencumbered format as soon as you get your hands on it. Store it
in this format, it should be usable in years to come.

Keep good backups, this is one of the advantages of a digital library which
partly offsets its greater vulnerability to disaster compared to a physical
library. It takes a lot of effort to destroy a physical library, but a simple
_rm -rf_ will do for a digital one. Store your backups in several locations,
off-site, somewhere out on the 'net in an encrypted container file (free cloud
storage accounts are handy for this purpose, just refresh them every now and
then and don't rely on them as a single source).

~~~
benologist
I'd go one step further and build your own private cloud for a bunch of stuff.
I did all this easily through a slick web interface for open source software
and linux that Synology has created.

A lot of this stuff includes apps for phone/tv/etc that you can download for
free in stores or even from their own site, and it can be available to
everyone in your household for some pretty decent savings - if it still works
in a year I'll have saved more than I spent on it ($290 + disks x4).

\- cloud files almost directly equivalent to Dropbox, I haven't solved sharing
files yet but I have versioning and undeleting for my work

\- note server like OneNote with a browser extension to save pages,
screenshots etc

\- music streaming ala Amazon Music et al

\- torrent downloading I guess is like seed boxes but never had one

\- video streaming server like Netflix

\- photo uploading like iCloud

\- email server, didn't actually install this one yet but everything else is
up and running

\- dns server with network-wide ad/malware/tracker blocking

~~~
Yetanfou
That is exactly what something like Owncloud/Nextcloud (for which I made those
book/publication-related tools) enables you to do: create a 'private cloud'
(what a silly word it is, really... cloud). It does some of the things you
mention 'out of the box' (file storage, photo uploading) or after installing
some 'apps' (note server, music streaming, video streaming, email user agent
(not a mail server)). Since it runs on *nix you get the rest (mail server, dns
server) more or less 'for free', just configure it the way you want.

~~~
benologist
Same in principal, but Synology have built a lovely, multi-window web
interface for a lot of linux and each of those apps, along with their own
Android + iOS apps.

[https://www.synology.com/en-
global/dsm/live_demo](https://www.synology.com/en-global/dsm/live_demo)

That consolidates a lot of different UIs, signins, permissions etc into a
single coherent interface - even terminal commands like configuring firewall,
network interfaces, user permissions, all that stuff.

To give you some examples it takes two clicks, a domain and any contrived
email address to get a Let's Encrypt certificate. It takes three more clicks
to assign it to a web app Synology is serving from that device. You can add
SSL to your own reverse-proxied app, also effortless to add, just as easily
and enable HSTS with a checkbox.

Their torrent software can watch RSS feeds and download straight into a folder
where it's indexed for their video server. Their video client provides a nice
interface for browsing but delegates the actual playback to VLC.

------
digler999
On their website is a banner: "Cancel netflix!". I click on it, and I'm told I
should cancel netflix because they put DRM on their HTML5 delivery of movies.

Now look, Im a self-professed pirate. I say screw most DRM and I dont
recognize IP law. However, I totally disagree that I should "cancel netflix".
What are they supposed to do ? Deliver all their movies DRM-free and see them
immediately get copied to torrent sites ? Or else, what , not use HTML5 and
require STB/smart tv support to use their product (which ALL have DRM, btw ) ?

Netflix is the _good guy_ , they are pioneers in electronic content delivery.
They are fighting to break the monopoly of the movie industry while having to
work _with_ them to get content. And they are producing their own content. All
for a very reasonable rate.

I will absolutely NOT cancel netflix because they support DRM. What a
ridiculous thing to suggest.

~~~
roywiggins
Netflix shows are all on torrent sites anyway. I'm not sure they would
actually lose anything if they dropped the DRM.

~~~
Silhouette
After a lot of thinking about DRM over the years, I realised this is one of
the great myths.

Yes, DRM is often readily broken. And yes, much of the content is available
via "alternative sources" for those who know where to look and how to protect
themselves from whatever else might try to come along for the ride. Those who
really want to rip something and have a bit of know-how will most likely be
able to do it sooner or later.

However, DRM can still prove a significant impediment to casual copying, which
in itself may protect significant revenues for the content providers. DRM also
makes it very clear to those with access to the content that certain things --
say, trying to keep permanent copies of content streamed from sites like
Netflix that rely on subscriptions to operate -- are not intended to be
possible. Again, in a culture where a lot of people have barely even heard of
copyright and just assume anything available online is free, that can be a big
win.

~~~
roywiggins
> Those who really want to rip something and have a bit of know-how will most
> likely be able to do it sooner or later.

The kind of piracy it does prevent is putting movies you've watched onto a USB
stick and handing it to a friend who doesn't pay for a subscription.

For distributing pirated content online, people wanting to download pirate
content still have to spelunk through torrent trackers or Popcorn Time or
whatever to actually get the video, whether it was distributed originally with
DRM or not. DRM-free just makes life a little bit easier for the uploaders.

------
bad_user
Just a friendly reminder that there are online shops that sell DRM-free
content. I found this guide helpful:
[https://www.defectivebydesign.org/guide](https://www.defectivebydesign.org/guide)

In particular, I'm a Downpour.com customer for audio books. Up until now they
had all the content I wanted, high quality too. And with a subscription the
prices are good.

I've also bought DRM-free games from Gog.com. E-books I sometimes buy from
Google Play, where they have mixed content. I only bought DRM-free books from
them, like for example the books in the Ender's Game series. The publishers of
all technical books I needed, like O'Reilly or Manning, are publishing DRM-
free. If I want a book that's only available as DRM-enabled, I buy it in
print.

For music, I used to have a Google Play Music subscription and also tried
Apple Music. But then I realized that I need streaming for work basically and
online radio is better. For example I like RadioParadise.com, they are ads
free.

Bitching about DRM to let other people know about its problems is cool, but
even cooler is voting with your wallet.

~~~
abawany
I agree. I signed up for an Audible trial not realizing the extent of their
appalling trash-fire DRM. In summary, you have to run their app on a device
they support to be able to listen to their content. Shocking since my local
library lets me check out audio books with fewer restrictions. Needless to say
that in spite of their very-nice electronic pleadings, I canceled the trial
promptly.

------
madaxe_again
It appears the EFF intend to fight section 1201 (thou shalt not circumvent) on
first amendment free speech arguments, and on the idea that punishment for
circumvention creates a chilling effect.

I don't think a court will buy it. They'll argue that 1201 protects the free
speech of content creators, and that it works as intended - and they will cite
the decss appeal, which was won by the media giants on the same argument.
[https://www.2600.com/news/112801-files/universal.html](https://www.2600.com/news/112801-files/universal.html)

~~~
riskable
I think part of the argument the EFF will make is that section 1201 is
inherently in conflict with itself in regards to fair use (an argument which
was explicitly _not_ ruled upon in the DeCSS court case) and free speech (to a
lesser extent). On the one hand the DMCA states that no one may make available
any tool that circumvents a control that protects a copyrighted work while on
the other hand it states (c 1):

    
    
        Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, 
        limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, 
        including fair use, under this title.
    

...and also (c 4):

    
    
        Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish any
        rights of free speech or the press for activities using
        consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing
        products.
    

If a control exists and there's no mechanism to circumvent it how can those
two paragraphs _ever_ apply? You could make the argument that for certain
works such as movies and music you have alternate means of obtaining the
material but for something like a hardware device (e.g. pacemaker) there
exists no mechanism _other than circumvention tools_ for anyone to exercise
their right of fair use. Therefore (in such cases) the anti-circumvention
clauses of the DMCA are a violation of constitutional rights.

If circumvention tools cannot be made available then citizens are effectively
barred from exercising their constitutional rights.

I firmly believe that the judge made a _horrible mistake_ in the original
DeCSS case when it was ruled that posting the source code of a circumvention
tool does not constitute free speech. It _damn well_ is free speech! It's
literally just a bunch of words and numbers along with a few math symbols
(code). I believe the idiocy of the ruling was made abundantly clear when
people uploaded audio of themselves singing the source code aloud.

Apparently it's time to put that "Source Code is Free Speech" bumper sticker
back on my car.

~~~
reachtarunhere
I am getting a customized T-Shirt with that message.

------
FussyZeus
The fact is both sides of this have a lot to answer for in terms of eroding
the underlying relationship when it comes to any consumer/creator transaction.
For a long time media companies made it artificially hard to purchase content
legally and in so doing are at least partially responsible for the rampancy of
piracy. In turn, a lot of people got used to pirating content for free instead
of paying for it, even when reasonably priced options were made available.

A decent number of pirates now refuse to pay for digital content/software
because "information should be free." This is a farce and anyone who earns a
living writing software or producing content knows it.

A decent number of media companies now treat their customers like criminals,
constantly checking and rechecking if they actually own the stuff they're
trying to use, which would be fine more or less if the software doing this
actually worked. If any one of the thousand links in that given chain break,
then the media the customer has paid for becomes unusable or is even deleted,
and that is unacceptable.

Both sides have their bad actors and it's hard to see a way out of this mess.

~~~
6stringmerc
This is very encouraging to read and I'm in complete agreement. I've posted a
link to my essay in this thread because I share the media/tech slugfest
perspective.

Personally I think the starting point to get out of this mess is an overhaul
first and foremost of Copyright terms. They're so far out of whack it
genuinely stifles innovation and expression and progress...etc. Now, more than
ever, time moves quickly - what may be profitable yesterday (e.g. "Gangnam
Style") may quickly fade. Thus it stands to reason that temporary protections
should be, well, much more temporary! I say this as a content creator and
paying customer - life + 5 years is, to me, more than fair. There's a window
to allow families of the deceased creator to make a bit of cash and get their
affairs in order before the works head into the Public Domain for the benefit
of all.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
The problem is the greed and narcissism on both sides.

The content corps make a ton of money by exploiting creative people. They used
to be able to justify this by claiming that they sponsored and nurtured
talent.

That was always a stretch, even when 15% of a CD sale - maximum - went to the
original creator, and the rest to the rest of the industry. But advances did
happen, and they were the only way creatives could afford to get on the first
step of the professional ladder.

Now we have shitty YouTube and Spotify streaming deals where advances don't
happen, and the industry - all of it - keeps way more than the 85% of nominal
value it used to.

But the "I want it, so you should give it to me for nothing because it costs
nothing to copy" pirates aren't any better.

How many pirates have made any effort to sponsor creators, or pay creators
directly for original content?

So what we actually have isn't a moral battle between good guys and bad guys.
It's a _battle between two distribution cartels_ \- one legally sanctioned,
the other not yet sanctioned but hoping to be.

And both are increasingly indistinguishable in their lack of interest in
sponsoring and promoting original creative work.

~~~
icebraining
_How many pirates have made any effort to sponsor creators, or pay creators
directly for original content?_

Studies in Norway, the UK, Australia and the US have shown that pirates
actually spend more than the general population on digital products like music
and films. The idea that you're either a Buyer or a Pirate is not, and has
never been true.

The fact is that a lot of people simply can't afford to buy all the content
they enjoy, and while some may find that morally repugnant, cracking down on
that piracy won't bring a cent more to authors.

~~~
swsieber
Citations please? I agree, but would like to have sources to back up my own
observations.

~~~
icebraining
Norway: [https://www.theguardian.com/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-
pi...](https://www.theguardian.com/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pirates-buy-
more-music)

UK:
[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121126/00590921141/dear-...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121126/00590921141/dear-
riaa-pirates-buy-more-full-stop-deal-with-it.shtml)

US: [http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/02/26/57-million-
americ...](http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/02/26/57-million-americans-
illegally-acquire-music-study-finds/)

Australia:
[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150722/06502731723/aussi...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150722/06502731723/aussie-
study-infringers-spend-more-content-than-non-infringers.shtml)

~~~
swsieber
Many thanks :)

------
Animats
Two blogs deep is the actual lawsuit: [1] Here's the legal theory: _" To the
extent that Section 1201 forbids circumvention even where such activity would
be a noninfringing use (such as a fair use), or facilitates other lawful uses,
it undermines the constitutionally required balance between copyright
liability and the First Amendment and thereby disturbs the traditional
contours of copyright."_

As a constitutional claim, that's weak, not being an absolute First Amendment
claim. The courts tend to defer to Congress where there's a balancing test.
But let's see what happens.

[1]
[https://www.eff.org/document/1201-complaint](https://www.eff.org/document/1201-complaint)

------
shmerl
Anti-circumvention laws should be repealed of course. But so far such attempts
didn't go far. If this lawsuit will succeed, things will be easier, but it's a
pretty random thing with courts. It might as well fail. What should be done is
much stronger pressure on legislators to fix this mess. Most simply don't care
about this issue because they don't understand its deep impact, and in result,
politicians get away with keeping the status quo achieved through corrupted
undemocratic lawmaking.

~~~
6stringmerc
I completely agree that legislators are really at the fault of this, and I do
see it as a tug-of-war between two gorillas - Content Lobbyists and Tech
Lobbyists - with, well, honest customers and researchers caught in the
crossfire.

------
njharman
DRM is a symptom. The disease is ridiculously expansive and one-sided
copyright law.

This is still good fight. Although I'm not optimistic. If DMCA wasn't laughed
out of the courts when it made Sharpie(tm) markers illegal "circumvention
devices" I kind of doubt that logic and rationality is in control at our
legislative and judicial systems.

------
6stringmerc
So, I just kinda-sorta stumbled upon this thought and would like your honest
opinions regarding a proposition:

Remove Section 1201 (DRM Circumvention) and Section 512 (Safe Harbor) at the
same time.

What happens next?

~~~
rincebrain
An amazing cacophany of copyright lawsuits flood out to everyone covered by
Safe Harbor at once - e.g. ISPs, CDNs, anyone who provides any sort of storage
or bandwidth to another person at all...

~~~
6stringmerc
Thanks for giving your thoughts, I think they are constructive.

------
mankash666
DRM exists to counter piracy. Without DRM, the publishers/authors have to rely
on the end customer, who, more often than not, will encourage piracy either by
sharing our not buying through official channels

The concerns raised are against corporations' clumsy implantations and you
have to make your case heard against them.

~~~
Spivak
Which is vastly different from how it works now.

"Let's watch X!" "Is it on Netflix?" "Aww damn, give me 5 minutes." "Alright,
I've got it!" _downloads xxx_X_1800p_brrip_supervids.mp4_ "Just let me plug in
my laptop" "THIS MEDIA IS PROTECTED BY INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT LAW" "Haha, I
love it when they leave the warning in." _enjoys movie_.

------
qwertyuiop924
I hope, but I am not optimistic. 1201 has lasted this long. It'll be hard to
strike it down.

------
siliconc0w
I wonder if you could make a fourth amendment claim as well. It can hardly be
said you can be secure in your effects if your effects are working against
you.

------
Sleaker
Is this blogs CSS messed up for anyone else? The font selection makes it
almost illegible.

------
6stringmerc
The link is to a reasonably thought out and worded perspective from that of a
technology industry participant. As noted within, there are some guiding
principles which establish the basis for perspective and action. As in, the
Free Software Foundation wouldn't be interested in participating in the for-
profit software market.

For a counter-point, when this case first broke and I was able to study the
implications from a creator and "IP holder" perspective, I wrote the following
essay:

[https://medium.com/@6StringMerc/arguments-against-the-
dmca-s...](https://medium.com/@6StringMerc/arguments-against-the-dmca-
section-1201-lawsuit-by-the-eff-b8d760de3fdf#.f5l4oo6an)

I will genuinely engage with anyone who would like to take some assertions or
postulations of mine and challenge them for the sake of discussion. These are
important topics!

~~~
pdkl95
> Copyright Abolitionists

Only a small subset of people against DRM and the problems in the DMCA are
against copyright.

Also, as zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC already pointed out, the FSF is fine[1] with for-
profit software. This confusion often derives from an assumption that you have
to deny distribution rights to your customers to sell them anything. That
isn't always true.

> study the implications

What you seem to be missing (in general) is about the EFF's fight against
Section 1201 is that this isn't about _copyright_. The EFF is fighting the ban
on bypassing "technological measure[s] that effectively controls access to a
work"[2]. This ban makes some types of security research illegal, because the
law treats security researchers announcing a DRM bug the same as someone
exploiting the same bug to copy a movie.

Right now you are probably using a browser that contains a 3rd part black box
CDM ("Content Decryption Module"). Every day you use that browser you're
betting that nobody has found an exploitable bug in that black box. Bugs are
particularly dangerous when they are hidden in a black box; it's easy to
ignore bugs that nobody can see. This concern isn't hypothetical: a bug in
Chrome's Widevine CDM was discovered recently[3].

[1]
[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html)

[2] 17 U.S.C Sec. 1201(a)(1)

[3] [http://boingboing.net/2016/06/24/googles-version-of-
the-w3c....](http://boingboing.net/2016/06/24/googles-version-of-the-w3c.html)

~~~
6stringmerc
Using your reasoning, only a small subset of people are genuinely affected by
the Section 1201 implications - security researchers in particular. Again, you
also in some ways prove my point by mentioning that DRM work-arounds are
nearly a daily occurrence in certain arenas. My essay argues - vehemently -
that academic exemption that passes the Four Factor Fair Use test _absolutely_
deserves to be codified into the Section 1201 going forward. This is not hard
to understand.

What you are missing, which is extremely important, is that Copyright is a
synthetic construct and therefore absolutely useless without any protectionist
mechanism. AKA "the right to make copies" \- DRM is just that - a mechanism to
protect the right of the originator to, under Copyright law, retain power over
the "Intellectual Property." I believe it's counter-productive, or maybe even
logically dishonest, to claim that destroying DRM isn't extremely intertwined
with Copyright as we know it.

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
> Using your reasoning, only a small subset of people are genuinely affected
> by the Section 1201 implications - security researchers in particular.

Using your reasoning, only a small subset of people would be genuinely
affected by a ban on medical research - medical researchers in particular.

Security researchers don't do security research for the sake of it, but to
make information technology more secure. When they find a security problem
that allows criminals to compromise your system, to steal your data, to break
into your bank account, whatever, they publish those findings to allow you to
protect yourself, and to allow people building those vulnerable systems to fix
them (and to pressure them into actually fixing them, as vendors usually don't
fix vulnerabilities without the threat of them becoming public). So, the
current state of the DMCA means more security vulnerabilities in everyone's
computers/smartphones, including your very own, and in the servers that you
rely on and store your data on. So much for only affecting a small subset of
people.

> Again, you also in some ways prove my point by mentioning that DRM work-
> arounds are nearly a daily occurrence in certain arenas.

Which doesn't really make it a good idea to keep them illegal? Just because
it's usually not enforced, doesn't mean there is no risk for those using the
workarounds.

> What you are missing, which is extremely important, is that Copyright is a
> synthetic construct and therefore absolutely useless without any
> protectionist mechanism.

First of all, much of the legal system is a synthetic construct. But most of
the legal system works just fine without "protectionist mechanisms" of the
severity of DRM. Is it illegal to stab people with a knife? Yes. Do we forbid
passing on knowledge about how to create a knife? No. There is no mechanism
that actually hinders people from stabbing other people. It's only a synthetic
construct and punishment if you don't follow the rules.

But also, it's just not true. Copyright was not useless before DRM or the
DMCA. There were more than enough cases of people being successfully sued, or
even prosecuted and convicted, for selling unauthorized copies of works.

It's a basic principle of a free society that you don't do everything that
would technically be possible to enforce the law, but you rather accept that
the reach of the law is limited, in order to achieve freedom. The law is that
you aren't allowed to murder people. It would probably be technically possible
to prevent almost all murder by chaining everyone to their beds. But we don't
do that. We instead accept that some murders will happen that could be
prevented this way in order to gain freedom. That does not mean that the law
against murder is useless.

> AKA "the right to make copies" \- DRM is just that - a mechanism to protect
> the right of the originator to, under Copyright law, retain power over the
> "Intellectual Property."

Yes, it is, and it is a highly unfair and overreaching mechanism. It's a
mechanism to retain power at a high cost to the other/controlled side. It's
taking away everyone's power and freedom in order to enforce that one
interest.

> I believe it's counter-productive, or maybe even logically dishonest, to
> claim that destroying DRM isn't extremely intertwined with Copyright as we
> know it.

I don't think anyone has ever claimed otherwise? Destroying (aka abolishing)
slavery was extremely intertwined with property laws as we know them. That
does not mean that property law, or copyright law, cannot work without
slavery, or DRM.

~~~
6stringmerc
Interesting perspective, and unfortunately I do not even remotely share the
"scope" of the effects being claimed, which is why I time and again argue for
effective reform. You've framed this as an incredible societal harm, which I
simply don't see from a practical standpoint. I'd feel a lot better about your
perspective if you would agree that "effective reform" can be possible in this
instance without over-arching slavery and murder insinuations. Equivocating
DRM with murder is ludicrous to me, it just is from a rhetorical standpoint.

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
> Equivocating DRM with murder is ludicrous to me, it just is from a
> rhetorical standpoint.

Except I didn't say anything of that sort? I mean, I didn't even compare DRM
to murder. So what the heck have you been reading?

~~~
6stringmerc
Yeah, you did in arguing that just because some Murders happen doesn't negate
the utility of a law, but you've conflated Copyright which is a Civil matter
in trying to discuss freedoms in a grand philosophical sense. I see you and I
view the practical implementation of Copyright in the modern era from
different perspectives. As in, you work from the premise that Copyright is
sufficient in and of itself without the DMCA & DRM, and I patently believe
that they were a response to Copyright being exposed as insufficient when
something like basic Blu-Ray encoding was broken in seven (7) days.
Discounting the dark-side capabilities of technology is, apparently, inherent
in your premise. On this we are not in agreement.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Yeah, you did in arguing that just because some Murders happen doesn't
> negate the utility of a law, but you've conflated Copyright which is a Civil
> matter in trying to discuss freedoms in a grand philosophical sense.

You seem to confuse _analogy_ with _equivalency_ , as well as failing to
recognize that, like homicide, there are both civil and criminal remedies for
violation of copyright; neither is a purely civil or purely criminal matter.

~~~
6stringmerc
How is using Murder, the taking of another's life, in any way a suitable
analogy to Copying a file/song/film without permission? They're completely
different ballparks and to do so is a form of equivalency - more like
equivocation, as I mentioned - because the harms are so drastically different.
It only takes one Murder to be convicted of a Criminal offense and sent to
Prison - there is a significantly higher bar[1] before Copyright Infringement
is remotely similar to the nature of the reference point. I mean, I get the
basic underlying philosophy being argued but I disagree with it. Talking about
Copyright and Murder in the same sentence, I will reiterate, is rhetorically
off-base.

A much more reasonable line of "analogy" (which it wasn't) would have been
talking about Theft and Copyright Infringement have disparate parameters on
the books, and therefore expose the over-reach of Copyright. I frequently
sense that because I'm not "pro-freedom" in the definition of those who
disagree with me that I'm somehow on the other side. I'm most definitely not
and it is quite tiring to feel such derision when I'm not a Partisan - I'm a
goddamn Independent.

[1] [http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Piracy-Puts-People-in-
Pri...](http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Piracy-Puts-People-in-Prison-92460)

