
StackExchange allows discussion of techniques for removing DRM. - Konerak
http://meta.superuser.com/questions/2212/is-discussion-of-techniques-for-removing-drm-permitted
======
fleitz
The United States is founded on illegal behavior (sedition and treason). If
the founders of the country have taught us anything it should be that great
things come from those willing to break the law in furtherance of mankind.

~~~
adsr
But not necessarily so. It's an inappropriate generalization, what illegal
behavior is good, all of it?

~~~
anonymoushn
Whether behavior is good or bad is independent of the law.

~~~
adsr
Certainly, but what I opposed was the generalization "great things come from
those willing to break the law". It's an attempt to create an association with
something that is generally agreed upon being something good, and law breaking
in general. It's an association that does not exist, logically.

~~~
david_shaw
In his defense, the full quote was that "great things come from those willing
to break the law _in furtherance of mankind_ ," which I think excludes a large
chunk of illegal behavior.

~~~
adsr
Yeah, but the problem is whose definition of furtherance we should use,
certainly it could fit into almost any agenda depending on who you ask. I
think it's highly probable that these founding fathers would actually stand up
and defend a mans right to protect his property. But we will never know their
thoughts on DRM, which is another reason the argument is more of an appeal to
emotion than reason. To be fair though, you see this type of argument all the
time, especially in politics and news reporting. But the argument is
rhetorical, the conclusion does not follow by logic necessity from the
premise. And the issue of being independent from England and be able to
influence how to govern the state, is different from just opposing the means
in which a private company decide to protect their investment in R&D and so
on.

~~~
fleitz
Actually Thomas Jefferson wrote a fair deal (no pun intended) on copyright and
ultimately he was ambivalent as to it's benefits, but he certainly recognized
that copyright's ultimate aim was to enrich the public domain and was not
intended to give ownership to ideas.

"Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress
of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of
an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and
stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all
others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an
idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to
himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession
of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar
character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other
possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives
instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at
mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread
from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of
man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and
benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible
over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air
in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of
confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be
a subject of property."

Also, copyright is a legal claim, so almost any argument about it will be
rhetorical. (Rhetoricians and Sophists were basically the first lawyers)
Copyright itself does not logically stem as a necessity of the conditions.
With regard to rhetoric logos is one of the rhetorical appeals so even an
argument based purely in logic can be rhetorical in nature.

~~~
adsr
Yes, but we are not discussing copyright, and I'm not making a case either
against or for DRM. DRM is just a technical means used to prevent someone from
making a copy, or use something in a manner not intended.

My only point is, that neither the tea party, french revolution or the peoples
uprise in Egypt tells us anything about the dos and don'ts related to breaking
DRM protection mechanisms. Never mind.

BTW, logic can't prove the truth of your first premise. But given the premise
you can draw logical conclusions that follows from the premise by necessity.

------
makecheck
Well, good...for those still affected by DRM.

I've managed to avoid DRM in an even simpler way: I consume far less content
than I used to. And I have only the DRM-using companies to thank for that.
When I finally took stock of my free time and realized what a waste it was to
sit on my ass for 2 hours to passively absorb even one stupid movie, I
basically stopped. Sure I watch things now and then, but nowhere _near_ as
much as before. I can pretty much guarantee that had there been no ridiculous
roadblocks making it painful to consume content, I'd still be buying more than
I do now. I wouldn't have seen a reason to change. So, thank you media
companies; your intense desire to not be in business has helped me free up
some time.

~~~
dotBen
As geeks I think we often don't pay enough value and respect for the arts.

Sitting on your ass for 2hrs to passively absorb a 'stupid movie' is just
that, stupid.

Sitting on your ass to watch something engaging, thought provoking, something
that makes you reassess the world around you, etc, can only be positive.

It comes down to what you are spending your time watching.

------
ZeroMinx
It's a brave new world when thinking/discussing certain topics is illegal.

~~~
fleitz
Thoughtcrime is one of the cornerstones of the justice system, it's not new at
all. For pretty much any charge if you've considered or planned that action
you'll pickup an additional conspiracy charge whether or not you actually
carried out the plan. Libel/Slander are pure expression liabilities. As well
mens rea or 'guilty mind' is an essential part of most prosecutions.

Look at what the Citizens Commission to Investigate the FBI found in just one
two man office: over 40% of the documents concerned monitoring of political
groups.

It's not armed groups that are dangerous, it's ideas. This is why people
REALLY don't like Wikileaks, it exposes the truth and provides it for the
people to judge in its raw and unadulterated form. Wikileaks poses only a
threat to those whose power derives from deceiving the people.

~~~
waqf
Your example laws are all against thinking about doing something bad _and_
then doing it. That's a bit different from criminalizing the thought in
isolation.

~~~
fleitz
That's a moot point as there is no way short of admission to prove a thought
occurred in isolation. Freedom of thought is useless with out freedom of
expression. Somethings certainly should be illegal to express but that doesn't
make it not thoughtcrime. I'm glad people can't plan my murder with out
charge, but lets not pretend it isn't thoughtcrime.

------
jonursenbach
Interesting that Spolsky didn't just post that himself instead of giving a
blurb to Attwood to post.

