While reading the articles this week, I had a hard time distinguishing between them after the first few. It seemed that they were all saying the same thing – the DMCA is corrupted, out of date, and stifling – with an extra paragraph here and there. One article simply states “DMCA is a mess.” When it comes to reverse engineering, it seems that the DMCA is actually less harmful than in other cases, but in terms of circumvention, it sounds like just that – a mess. The DMCA generally prohibits circumvention of DRM schemes for any reason. This means any use other than the producer’s intended use is one that goes against copyright law and could be punishable by fine or even prison time. Every three years, however, Congress meets and hears arguments from users and producers alike to edit the list of what is considered “fair use.” This sends people into a never ending battle, one that often turns on itself. One article recalled one hearing in which e-books were allowed to be altered for those with visual impairments, and then three years, that privilege was overturned by the same group that fought for it in the first place.
In many cases, I feel that it is ethical for companies to use DRM schemes to protect their work, but I find it hard to make an overarching statement like that. In terms of copying DVD’s, I feel that DRM is perfectly acceptable – if a user wants more than one copy of a DVD, he or she should have to purchase more than one copy. But when it comes to downloading DVD’s to local files, I think that should be permitted. If a user purchases a DVD and wants to copy it to his/her computer so that he can watch it on the go without having to bring the physical DVD, I believe he should legally be able to. The user purchased that DVD and the content on it. Making unlawful copies is one thing, but simply making it more convenient to enjoy the content seems like it should be allowed. Same goes for removing DRM from music bought on iTunes. If you pay for a song, it should then become yours to move between your devices – you should not have to buy it multiple times to save it on multiple devices.
Reverse engineering laws seem to be slightly less clear-cut. In many of the court cases in the articles, cases would initially be ruled as unlawful, but then that ruling would be turned over and described as fair use. One article describes the boundaries of reverse engineering in a pretty simple way. If you are trying to create a piece of code that will function alongside some other software, “have the reverse engineering team that studies the code develop a written manual that describes the necessary interfaces in purely functional terms, then engage separate developers to build original code based on the manual and without access to the copyrighted software.” Reverse engineering in order to create useful products that work alongside other products, not that will overtake those products, sounds perfectly lawful to me. Circumvention seems lawful in some cases, but not in all. As I said before, if a user circumvents DRM on a DVD to make unlawful copies of it, I don’t believe that should be permitted. But if a user owns a tractor or a phone, it would make sense that they should be able to “unlock” the software. I also feel that museums or galleries should be able to circumvent DRM for the purpose of preserving works for the future. If everything is locked away tightly and curators aren’t able to legally store works, we may lose precious information. The DMCA is “basically putting cultural repositories in positions where they either have to interpret very murky scenarios or they have to decide that they are going to do something that they realize is forbidden and hope that nobody’s going to notice.” Rather than forcing curators to hope nobody notices, permissions should be granted to them so that we can ensure that so many incredible creations don’t die with their creators.
Overall, I agree with the many writers of most of the articles I read. The DMCA was probably a good force at one time, but it continues to exist in a world where it is completely outdated. The solution of updating exceptions every three years is tedious and unnecessary, and instead, the current DMCA should be thrown out and rewritten. Rather than meeting every three years to find exceptions, maybe Congress should meet every three years to rewrite the DMCA in order to ensure that it keeps up with time.
hfredric 