Quote:
Originally Posted by rixte
I'm not a fan of DRM, since I don't think it has any real benefit beyond making publishers feel like they're doing *something*, however impotent. But I'm not seeing how you're making the leap to DRM as a copyright elimination device (unless you mean the DMCA?).
|
Precisely, the DMCA facilitates the use of DRM to accomplish this.
Here's how I see it:
In the US, fair use is carved out from the ownership rights established in artistic works by the copyright law. In other words, fair use amounts to those rights which the copyright owner does not, in fact, own. Those fair use rights are owned by the public.
DRM prevents the public from exercising its fair use rights, because as a practical matter, the DMCA prevents anyone from acquiring the tools necessary to get around DRM in order to make fair use of the material involved.
Check out
http://www.unt.edu/policy/UNT_Policy/volume3/19_2.html
It is beyond dispute, for example, that a university professor can take a slice/chapter/endnote from Infinite Jest, photocopy it, distribute it to his class, and not be in violation of copyright. This is easily done with the paper book, except for getting the damn thing to lie down right on the copy machine.
But DRM prevents a university professor from taking the exact same material in electronic form, and distribute it to his class
on their computers. Instead, he has to hire a typist, get it typed into a file, proof the document, &c, and the bottom line is that the professor tells the class to buy the book from Amazon instead.
So what has happened here is that DRM has defeated fair use, which contemplates exactly the opposite, namely, that the class does NOT have to pay for using the material.