I do think this is silly; the risk is that it gets upheld and sparks a spate of "arresting normal people".
I dont see the problem with laws like this TBH: getting it questioned in court doesn't get to the root of the copyright issue in any meaningful way...
I thought there existed something of a gentleman's agreement in respect to this area: copying DVD's is that legal grey area that is probably against the law. But the rules aren't enforced for "everyman" and are there to help prosecute the big time bootleggers :) (DVD's out the back of vans).
I cant see how this would help at all - it's a non-issue, right?
If the law is there to help prosecute bootleggers, then why aren't the laws against bootlegging enough? The law against making copies of DVDs is superfluous, by your own reasoning. Why isn't a good idea to challenge laws like this?
Challenge everything. That is the basis of our legal system (not to be confused with EA who's motto is "Rip-off Everyone".) So if you feel something is unjust challenge it. And sometimes you just have no way around it other than to be taken to court or to go to court.
I dont buy it: which "little guy" has been prosecuted for breaking DRM encryption for personal use? (as this is what it amounts to).
I cant agree this would help: it's not really a contentious issue at the moment and this risks a) giving copyright apologists something to distract people with and b) risks a crackdown on people making personal backups...
I think there are better areas to challenge initially; that's all.
Me. I was not prosecuted, but bullied by repeated DMCA infringement notices and ridiculous copyright infringement claims. I ran a company that produced a library to allow use of Fairplay DRM (used in iTunes) content on unsupported platforms, and despite not allowing users to strip DRM off of their files (just play them back), we were bludgeoned out of business by claim on claim from Apple.
You don't need to take someone to court to harm them with a law, simply make it so that they have no choice but to stop doing whatever it is that they're doing. In all likelihood, we would've won if we went to court, and we could've easily won a countersuit for the copyright infringement claims (they actually said later that they didn't say such a thing, despite us having it in black and white), but none of that matters if you can't take on an expensive and drawn out lawsuit.
Ran into this same situation with a previous employer filing suit against me for allegedly violating a ridiculously overreaching non-compete agreement. In the end, we had to shut down and agree to some ridiculous settlement because we couldn't afford to fight them.
However it's not an example like I talked about. Even if this guy wins through I don't see how it would affect the broad DRM laws such as hounded you. As I see it it would be a test case for personal use being allowed?
A test case could make it clear(er) whether using drm-cracking software for personal use is allowed. Writing drm-cracking software would still be in a grey area as you say, but putting a primary use-case for the software firmly in the white must help.
DMCA laws damage the economy, help create a police state, and are unnecessary.
The fact that format shifting DVD's is illegal harms the billion dollar market for digital video products. If format shifting CD's was illegal digital music products like the iPod may never have been the success they are today.
Making ordinary people criminals, but prosecuting them inconsistently gives arbitrary power to the state. This can create a climate of fear and lead in the direction of a police state.
Commercial bootlegging of CD's is a violation of existing copyright law, and nothing new needed to be made illegal to address it.
I value and respect the contribution of the great Dane.
There are two laws. They seem to conflict with each other. They both speak to acts that many, many normal people (as well as bootleggers) engage in and/or wish to engage in. Several people have tried to get clarification, but to no avail.
Thus, the only way to test the laws is to break one of them, and see what happens.
You may argue that it's not important, because only egregious violators are ever prosecuted. But that's the same as a government making a law which says "nobody is allowed to speak loudly" and then saying "but don't worry, we'll only arrest people who say dangerous things loudly".
But "arresting normal people" would be a great outcome for this (at least from the philosophical perspective I think he's coming from): it would make it a lot harder for Joe Random to push off a law as "stupid, but doesn't affect me, so whatever". If "normal people" start getting arrested and irritated, the law will be fixed.
I dont see the problem with laws like this TBH: getting it questioned in court doesn't get to the root of the copyright issue in any meaningful way...
I thought there existed something of a gentleman's agreement in respect to this area: copying DVD's is that legal grey area that is probably against the law. But the rules aren't enforced for "everyman" and are there to help prosecute the big time bootleggers :) (DVD's out the back of vans).
I cant see how this would help at all - it's a non-issue, right?