DRM technology and Copyright law
It is always worrying when one feels that one is unable to agree with organizations one respects, such as the Electronic Freedom Foundation, and the European Commission (please remember we are a European business so we are required by law to respect decisions of the European Parliament (even whilst we lobby sedulously to change them).
But it seems that in the field of DRM and its relationship to Copyright there is a real and serious debate to be engaged.
It seems very strange indeed (my French friends – yes, I do have some – would say bizarre) that life, social customs, business and practice, are being driven on the balance of the argument that because I can do something, then I will and that makes it right.
We first saw this argument being applied when cassette tape recorders could be used to copy other cassette tapes, and nobody could stop the copying.
Now I agree that what happened, the cassette tape levy, was probably every bit as pragmatic as the decisions of Learned Hand in the USA (for those of you not familiar with his contribution to modern law both for social justice and liability please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_Hand ).
But one has to wonder at the concepts that our modern legislators are intent on ramming down our throats. When music was recorded on vinyl disks (or 78 rpm records) the idea of copying a record was more than just slightly crazy in the extreme. So Copyright law was framed to be appropriate to what was possible at the time.
Roll forward to today, and we find a veritable panoply claiming the right to be able to copy (please remember that the use of any computer system requires a copying) anywhere, anytime, anyhow, anywhere, to anyone.
Now the bit that is very interesting is the idea that you buy something, and you have the right to pass copies of it on (whether for money or otherwise) to someone else as well as keeping it for yourself.
When you are dealing with physical artefacts, like a printed book, or a vinyl disk then the physical reality was that if you sold on (or just merely lent) your copy to somebody else, then you could not make use of it yourself. Yes, you could, because you had (hopefully) eyes in your head, read your book at home, or on the train or plane. But if you had transferred it to somebody else then you had to forego that pleasure.
But the modern conviction is that if I can manage to copy it then I can make it available, or even give it to other people whilst retaining the ability to use it myself. And that is the most important flaw in the modern assertion. The ability to make copies for your own personal use may never be claimed to be the right to make copies available to others whilst retaining the right to use the work yourself. The entire intent of Copyright is explained by the word itself. It is about the right to make (and by implication) distribute copies.
Even the earliest legislation in China, or, significantly later, the Doctrine of Anne in the UK made it absolutely clear that Copyright was all about your authority to make and distribute a copy of a work.
That runs counter to the current philosophy which appears, unfortunately, to suggest that because anything in a digital form can be copied, then there is implicitly a ‘right’ to copy that work without charge and to freely distribute or make available for copying that work. It’s a damn good job we don’t yet have digital cash – can you imagine the banks agreeing to this deal?
Since Copyright is an economic right that is granted by nation state governments (this is an absolute fact so I will not waste any time by debating it), the only important economic issue is to consider is how can Copyright be used to ensure that the author or the publisher (or both) maximises their economic return. After all, as far as Adam Smith (a serious heavyweight if you want to have a disagreement (discussion?) about economics) was concerned, profit was the ultimate goal. So the idea that the value of information should be distributed without payment would be very strange indeed What could possibly be the motivation for distributing IPR if there was no profit resulting?
If it were true that all information was free to all users at any time in any place, then we would never have bothered to bring in Copyright and Patent laws, because what would have been the point? But we know, with absolute certainty, that Patents are significantly important because economic activity (evidenced by patent litigation against the Blackberry and Copyright against Yahoo – as mere exemplars of this point and not to suggest that the companies themselves engage in activity that Is inappropriate) shows that there is a real value in IPR.
So think ahead, if you can’t protect your IPR, then creating IPR becomes an uneconomic activity, and people and businesses stop doing it. I can’t say what the new economy will be, except that it won’t be on the Open Source model except where the Open Source element is being used to sell something else. Maybe advertising is needed to subsidise everything else? But if you want IPR you need Copyright Law and DRM.
But it seems that in the field of DRM and its relationship to Copyright there is a real and serious debate to be engaged.
It seems very strange indeed (my French friends – yes, I do have some – would say bizarre) that life, social customs, business and practice, are being driven on the balance of the argument that because I can do something, then I will and that makes it right.
We first saw this argument being applied when cassette tape recorders could be used to copy other cassette tapes, and nobody could stop the copying.
Now I agree that what happened, the cassette tape levy, was probably every bit as pragmatic as the decisions of Learned Hand in the USA (for those of you not familiar with his contribution to modern law both for social justice and liability please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_Hand ).
But one has to wonder at the concepts that our modern legislators are intent on ramming down our throats. When music was recorded on vinyl disks (or 78 rpm records) the idea of copying a record was more than just slightly crazy in the extreme. So Copyright law was framed to be appropriate to what was possible at the time.
Roll forward to today, and we find a veritable panoply claiming the right to be able to copy (please remember that the use of any computer system requires a copying) anywhere, anytime, anyhow, anywhere, to anyone.
Now the bit that is very interesting is the idea that you buy something, and you have the right to pass copies of it on (whether for money or otherwise) to someone else as well as keeping it for yourself.
When you are dealing with physical artefacts, like a printed book, or a vinyl disk then the physical reality was that if you sold on (or just merely lent) your copy to somebody else, then you could not make use of it yourself. Yes, you could, because you had (hopefully) eyes in your head, read your book at home, or on the train or plane. But if you had transferred it to somebody else then you had to forego that pleasure.
But the modern conviction is that if I can manage to copy it then I can make it available, or even give it to other people whilst retaining the ability to use it myself. And that is the most important flaw in the modern assertion. The ability to make copies for your own personal use may never be claimed to be the right to make copies available to others whilst retaining the right to use the work yourself. The entire intent of Copyright is explained by the word itself. It is about the right to make (and by implication) distribute copies.
Even the earliest legislation in China, or, significantly later, the Doctrine of Anne in the UK made it absolutely clear that Copyright was all about your authority to make and distribute a copy of a work.
That runs counter to the current philosophy which appears, unfortunately, to suggest that because anything in a digital form can be copied, then there is implicitly a ‘right’ to copy that work without charge and to freely distribute or make available for copying that work. It’s a damn good job we don’t yet have digital cash – can you imagine the banks agreeing to this deal?
Since Copyright is an economic right that is granted by nation state governments (this is an absolute fact so I will not waste any time by debating it), the only important economic issue is to consider is how can Copyright be used to ensure that the author or the publisher (or both) maximises their economic return. After all, as far as Adam Smith (a serious heavyweight if you want to have a disagreement (discussion?) about economics) was concerned, profit was the ultimate goal. So the idea that the value of information should be distributed without payment would be very strange indeed What could possibly be the motivation for distributing IPR if there was no profit resulting?
If it were true that all information was free to all users at any time in any place, then we would never have bothered to bring in Copyright and Patent laws, because what would have been the point? But we know, with absolute certainty, that Patents are significantly important because economic activity (evidenced by patent litigation against the Blackberry and Copyright against Yahoo – as mere exemplars of this point and not to suggest that the companies themselves engage in activity that Is inappropriate) shows that there is a real value in IPR.
So think ahead, if you can’t protect your IPR, then creating IPR becomes an uneconomic activity, and people and businesses stop doing it. I can’t say what the new economy will be, except that it won’t be on the Open Source model except where the Open Source element is being used to sell something else. Maybe advertising is needed to subsidise everything else? But if you want IPR you need Copyright Law and DRM.
Comments