[DMCA-Activists] Infoworld: Is Content Control Constitutional?

[Seth Johnson]

> http://weblog.infoworld.com/foster/2004/07/13.html#a127


THE GRIPE LINE WEBLOG

by Ed Foster
Tuesday, July 13, 2004 


Is Copy Protection Constitutional?


It's not unusual for my readers to have some strong things to say about DRM,
product activation and the like. But one reaction to my column last week on
Roxio's product activation was particularly remarkable, the more so because
it came from the president of a software company.

"We are a small company which does a lot of customized software, so there is
a difference there between us and the Microsofts, et. al. of the world," the
reader wrote. "However, our philosophies cannot be too dissimilar, since we
all make our money off our software."

"All that said, I view copy protection as an absolute immoral, illegal, and
unconstitutional intrusion of individual rights," the reader wrote. "I have
gotten fed up with companies and people in general treating everyone like a
criminal until they prove otherwise. I will not allow anyone at my company
to even suggest a copy protection scheme, because I believe in going after
the offenders, and not everyone else."

Unconstitutional intrusion? "Absolutely" the reader wrote, citing the Fourth
Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. "It is my
belief that these activation schemes are essentially a search as it keeps
track of the hardware in the system. It may be general information, but
still nonetheless a search. Secondly, when the software is disabled as a
result of a hardware change, again, this is a search, but also a seizure. I
understand all too well that software is licensed, and title and copyright
is retained with the authoring entity; however, the price paid for the
software is essentially a rental price. How often in this country can a
person be thrown out of their residence without the owner going to court
first? It just doesn't happen."

The reader also cited the Fifth Amendment and its provision that no person
should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
"Disabling software when the person has paid the entity's price for it
constitutes the person being deprived of liberty and property without due
process," he wrote. "I have written and continue to write Senators,
Congressmen, etc. to try to get some action on this, but the issue is just
simply not big enough or hot enough to get Congress to move on."

Them's fighting words, I do believe. Write me at address@hidden and
tell me which side of the fight you're on.


-- 

DRM is Theft!  We are the Stakeholders!

New Yorkers for Fair Use
http://www.nyfairuse.org

[CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of
this incidentally recorded communication.  Original authorship should be
attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for
usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
exclusive rights.