I know I'll get flamed for this, but Sony did have a right to respond to the fact that he was distributing backup copies of their software.
The DMCA bs was probably just because they were already pissed. I absolutely agree that the DMCA is wrong but this guy didn't help his cause by putting copyrighted software on his site.
You can't scream about unfair laws and then break the ones that are fair.
You can't scream about unfair laws and then break the ones that are fair.
First off, who says that copyright is fair? I would guess that the people most opposed to the DMCA already didn't like copyright. It's more like screaming about really unfair laws and then breaking different unfair ones. This guy obviously thought he wasn't doing anything wrong, and I agree with him.
Secondly, this is a counterproductive abuse of copyright. We're talking about software that can only be usefully run on an expensive toy that the copyright-holder sells. They don't need copyright protection. I think this could be considered fair use, because it's non-commercial, for research and education purposes, and does not actually interfere with their profit potential. OTOH, if someone cloned AIBO, they might have some reasonable justification to interfere.
The appropriate response would have been to lead with the ominous assertion of copyright restrictions, and follow with permission to use it to increase the value of their product. IOW, distribution under restrictive license (permission is only granted to owners of an AIBO to copy and modify this code, and only for the purpose of running it on an AIBO, all modifications become copyright Sony, etc.). Or, at worst, tell him to distribute his modifications as patches.
Basically, instead they told him that he shouldn't even have thought about modifying the software, because there's no way in Hell it would ever be permitted.
To me, this is an extremely offensive interference with personal property and free speech rights. The way I see it, people have a right to make any modifications they want to gadgets they've bought, as long as it doesn't make them dangerous to others, and a right to describe how such modifications may be made, quoting copyrighted materials as necessary, as long as that quoting, in and of itself, doesn't directly reduce the commercial value of the copyright.
Most people at least believe copyright is in principle a good idea. The zealots who scream "free free free" all the time do a great job at marginalising themselves, and those who have a more moderate agenda than simply getting everything for free.
Most people that think copyright is a good idea in principle also understand that in current practice it's horrible. The term is effectively unlimited, and now the DMCA severely curtails fair use and reverse engineering rights. Not to mention the SSSCA that I'm sure we haven't seen the last of. Copyright in theory is a good idea. But when the greedy bastards of this world get ahold of the government, things go downhill fast.
OK, even if we didn't have the DMCA, SSSCA, and 'unlimited' copyright terms, and copyright law hadn't changed since 1920*, if this guy was distributing the software for a current Sony product, it would still be illegal.
As to the greater argument -- Disagreeing with the legitimacy of a law is fine, although it's finer if you don't get caught.
* Apparently the copyright status of computer programs wasn't clear until the early 80s, but I'm assuming here that software would be covered.
It would not have been illegal. Up until just a few years ago, distributing copyrighted materials without expecting any compensation was not a crime (or at least, not a punishable crime). They (the US gov't) had to recently explicitly add to the codes covering this (sorry, IANAL, do not remember more detail) to prevent giving away copyrighted materials.
Sony couldn't sue for 'damages', but certainly they could get a restraining order telling you to stop distributing the stuff. (Which is all they've asked for in this case)
> Up until just a few years ago, distributing
> copyrighted materials without expecting any
> compensation was not a crime (or at least, not a
> punishable crime).
Up until a few years ago, duplication and mass distribution of copyrighted materials cost actual $$$. It was rather costly to Xerox a book a hundre thousand times and mail it to people, or to tape an LP and mail it to a hundred thousand people. Moreover, those copies were always slightly flawed.
One way to make your old car run better is to look up the price of a new model.
This guy sort of brought it on himself (Score:5, Insightful)
The DMCA bs was probably just because they were already pissed. I absolutely agree that the DMCA is wrong but this guy didn't help his cause by putting copyrighted software on his site.
You can't scream about unfair laws and then break the ones that are fair.
Re:This guy sort of brought it on himself (Score:4, Insightful)
First off, who says that copyright is fair? I would guess that the people most opposed to the DMCA already didn't like copyright. It's more like screaming about really unfair laws and then breaking different unfair ones. This guy obviously thought he wasn't doing anything wrong, and I agree with him.
Secondly, this is a counterproductive abuse of copyright. We're talking about software that can only be usefully run on an expensive toy that the copyright-holder sells. They don't need copyright protection. I think this could be considered fair use, because it's non-commercial, for research and education purposes, and does not actually interfere with their profit potential. OTOH, if someone cloned AIBO, they might have some reasonable justification to interfere.
The appropriate response would have been to lead with the ominous assertion of copyright restrictions, and follow with permission to use it to increase the value of their product. IOW, distribution under restrictive license (permission is only granted to owners of an AIBO to copy and modify this code, and only for the purpose of running it on an AIBO, all modifications become copyright Sony, etc.). Or, at worst, tell him to distribute his modifications as patches.
Basically, instead they told him that he shouldn't even have thought about modifying the software, because there's no way in Hell it would ever be permitted.
To me, this is an extremely offensive interference with personal property and free speech rights. The way I see it, people have a right to make any modifications they want to gadgets they've bought, as long as it doesn't make them dangerous to others, and a right to describe how such modifications may be made, quoting copyrighted materials as necessary, as long as that quoting, in and of itself, doesn't directly reduce the commercial value of the copyright.
Re:This guy sort of brought it on himself (Score:2)
Most people at least believe copyright is in principle a good idea. The zealots who scream "free free free" all the time do a great job at marginalising themselves, and those who have a more moderate agenda than simply getting everything for free.
Re:This guy sort of brought it on himself (Score:2)
Most people that think copyright is a good idea in principle also understand that in current practice it's horrible. The term is effectively unlimited, and now the DMCA severely curtails fair use and reverse engineering rights. Not to mention the SSSCA that I'm sure we haven't seen the last of. Copyright in theory is a good idea. But when the greedy bastards of this world get ahold of the government, things go downhill fast.
Re:This guy sort of brought it on himself (Score:2)
As to the greater argument -- Disagreeing with the legitimacy of a law is fine, although it's finer if you don't get caught.
* Apparently the copyright status of computer programs wasn't clear until the early 80s, but I'm assuming here that software would be covered.
Re:This guy sort of brought it on himself (Score:1)
Re:This guy sort of brought it on himself (Score:1)
Re:This guy sort of brought it on himself (Score:1)
> copyrighted materials without expecting any
> compensation was not a crime (or at least, not a
> punishable crime).
Up until a few years ago, duplication and mass distribution of copyrighted materials cost actual $$$. It was rather costly to Xerox a book a hundre thousand times and mail it to people, or to tape an LP and mail it to a hundred thousand people. Moreover, those copies were always slightly flawed.