| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Censorship infrastructureCensorship infrastructurePosted Aug 1, 2005 20:01 UTC (Mon) by rknop (guest, #66)Parent article: Microsoft's DRM vision
Indeed, if DRM *did* work, it would make an excellent infrastructure for generalized censorship. As people read and write more things with their comptuer, having central control over what people are able to do with their computer is just ideal for somebody who might want to have in place a system that allows curtailing of free expression.
Not that anybody is planning that now or anything... but they sure could do it, and I bet there are some who would think it would be great if they could. (Would the Senate, for example, like the idea of being able to disable all computers that have "Grand Theft Auto" installed?)
Although-- people are planning to do that now. Strictly speaking, copyright *is* censorship. (It's a law passed by the government that limits what you can say or publish. It fits the definition....)
-Rob
(Log in to post comments)
Copyright is NOT Censorship Posted Aug 2, 2005 4:15 UTC (Tue) by AnswerGuy (guest, #1256) [Link] Trying to say that copyright is a form of censorship is a distortion.
Sure copyright law limits what one can "say" to the extent that one cannot "say" any substantial portion of what another person already said without a license from the original author. However censorship is not defined so broadly as to include every possible utterance or composition that someone might say. It is not censorship to forbid people from publishing credit card numbers, nor to enforce non-disclosure agreements (contracts which are used to protect trade secrets).
Censorship has to do with limiting the spirit of expression. The principle of free speech allows one to express any ideas or sentiments one wishes without fear of legal reprisal or limitation by a government. Those ideas must, however, be expressed in one's own terms (or by drawing from the public domain, or within the constraints of fair use, etc). There are some *forms* of expression that can be limited. So, while I could be a sexist or racist or otherwise vile as I like I cannot do so in a form that can be reasonably construed as an inducement to harm those who I disdain.
I suspect I'm wasting my pixels even trying to make the distinction here. However, it should be obvious that the statement "copyright is censorship" is non-sensical hyperbole. If one wishes to debate the ethical and legal foundations of copyright (and other forms of "intellectual property") than this is not a productive starting point.
JimD
Copyright is NOT Censorship Posted Aug 2, 2005 5:08 UTC (Tue) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] Yes, it's hyperbole.
But it's not non-sensical hyperbole.
Copyright *is* censorship. That doesn't mean that it's therefore necessarily wrong and should be completely thrown out. We accept other limitations on free speech -- clear and present danger, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, etc.
My point is that the debate might be a lot more balanced if we recognized copyright for what it is -- a limitation on the freedom of expression. Calling it "intellectual property" makes people feel all warm and fuzzy about property rights. If we recognzied it as a limitation on the freedom of expression, then we might recognize that more copyright isn't necessarily better. We'd be much more considered going in to figure out just how much of our freedom of expression we are willing to sacrifice to accomplish the goal of copyright (i.e. to promote the progress of the arts, to allow creators to survive at doing what we as a society value).
-Rob
Copyright is NOT Censorship Posted Aug 2, 2005 10:22 UTC (Tue) by chel (guest, #11544) [Link] "Trying to say that copyright is a form of censorship is a distortion."
Just read articles like: http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11259
With a quote: "We don't want them to further discuss it," said Cisco spokesman John Noh. "This is about protecting our intellectual property."
Sounds like using copyright for censorship. (Trying to avoid publication of Cisco security problems)
Not so fast Posted Aug 2, 2005 14:40 UTC (Tue) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] First of all, it depends on how copyright is implemented. But the simplefact is that because it gives one group the right to tell other groups to not do certain things that it can be used for censorship. It conflicts with the first ammendment. The answer to that has always been to limit the coverage of copyright: it is only on the fixed expression, not the idea; it can't protect parodies or commentary; it can't limit usage of small portions; it can't limit usage at a different time/place; etc.
However DRM isn't directly the same as copyright. And the DMCA is not
Essentially the way it is designed is that the person who designs the DRM
|
|
||||||||||||