Cory Doctorow rants about Tivo using DRM in their newly-announced "to go" feature.
Cory's wrong. This is really simple: it's called "contributory infringement" and it's the law of this nation. If TiVo doesn't do something to show that they are actively trying to discourage illegal distribution of copyrighted content, they will absolutely get sued. There will be injunctions against selling their product, which will scare away retail outlets and distributors, and then their business will dry up and there's no more TiVo. This is not about disruptive technologies and new businesses.
You can't fault TiVo for running their business in a way that's inline with the laws of this nation. If we don't like the laws, we call our elected officials and get them to change them. But businesses (and individuals) have to follow those laws as they exist today.
The laws say that there are "fair uses" of copyrighted material that do not violate copyright holders' rights. It doesn't say that individuals and companies must do everything in their power to make it easy for people to exercise fair use. In fact, in my reading of the laws, I have never seen a reference to one's "right to fair use" -- they simply say that there are fair uses which don't violate copyright. I'm sorry, but that's the law, and it is overwhelmingly in favor of protecting copyright holders' rights. Once again, if we don't like it, we should get Congress to change it, but you don't hold companies at fault for obeying the law.
What I think is particularly hysterical is when people get all huffy and declare that they are sharing music and video in an act of defiance against the labels and studios that they believe are making huge profits at the expense of the artists. So let me get this straight: you are listening to music and watching movies for free, in violation of this nation's copyright laws, as an act of civil disobedience. The logic of this is so incredibly twisted that I don't even know where to begin taking it apart. Look, this is NOT the moral equivalent of stealing food to avoid starvation. This is a CONVENIENCE, not an essential, life-critical thing. As an act of civil disobedience, this is incedibly self-serving. If gasoline gets expensive, is it ok to steal that too in protest of Big Oil? Cars aren't cheap, should I drive to my local dealer and hotwire one? Puh-lease. And let's keep going down the slippery slope: I hate Bush, so should I go stuffing ballot boxes to make sure he loses the next election? Civil disobedience is an incredibly messy endeavor, and it's very difficult to do it effectively. It had better be a cause that you believe in deeply, and one where you can really be sure that you're securely on the moral high ground.
So before people jump to the conclusion that I'm just shilling for the RIAA and MPAA, let me just say that I do believe that the copyright laws need to change now. For one simple reason: current technology has made them essentially unenforceable, except against large companies (like Tivo, or Microsoft). I was reading a book recently of Albert Einstein's lesser-known writings, and I came across a great passage where he discussed this very notion: that the worst kind of laws to have on the books are ones that are unenforceable. I wish that Larry Lessig would spend his efforts drafting a rewrite to the copyright laws for the 21st century, rather than just arguing about arcane interpretations and loopholes in the existing ones. Now that would get us somewhere, and I bet he could get lots of help.
8:55:31 AM  ; ;
|
|
