Comments on: Civil Disobedience http://www.kyleandkelly.com/2005/09/19/civil-disobedience/ Memories in progress Thu, 29 Oct 2009 04:16:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Jeremy http://www.kyleandkelly.com/2005/09/19/civil-disobedience/comment-page-1/#comment-300 Jeremy Thu, 22 Sep 2005 19:07:12 +0000 http://www.kyleandkelly.com/?p=281#comment-300 Unfortunately that would be a losing case. Mostly because they aren't really reverse engineering any code to use against them. EThe protocols and specs for the networks are pretty much all open and most of the code is too. That isn't reverse engineering. Unfortunately that would be a losing case. Mostly because they aren’t really reverse engineering any code to use against them. EThe protocols and specs for the networks are pretty much all open and most of the code is too. That isn’t reverse engineering.

]]> By: Calvin http://www.kyleandkelly.com/2005/09/19/civil-disobedience/comment-page-1/#comment-299 Calvin Thu, 22 Sep 2005 01:30:47 +0000 http://www.kyleandkelly.com/?p=281#comment-299 Does the DMCA target the reverse engineering of encryption systems, or simply getting around them in general. I thought it was the former (but perhaps its both). Anyway, if its the former, the fact that the band has told people how to get around their encryption system would make it legal for people to bypass it because they wouldn't have to do the work of reverse engineering. If it is both however, music listeners are just screwed because new tech law has trumped previous laws. Perhaps the P2P networks and other various things that are getting attacked by the media industry should counter-sue because the industry is unfairly reverse-engineering their code to use it against them. Does the DMCA target the reverse engineering of encryption systems, or simply getting around them in general. I thought it was the former (but perhaps its both). Anyway, if its the former, the fact that the band has told people how to get around their encryption system would make it legal for people to bypass it because they wouldn’t have to do the work of reverse engineering. If it is both however, music listeners are just screwed because new tech law has trumped previous laws.

Perhaps the P2P networks and other various things that are getting attacked by the media industry should counter-sue because the industry is unfairly reverse-engineering their code to use it against them.

]]> By: Kyle http://www.kyleandkelly.com/2005/09/19/civil-disobedience/comment-page-1/#comment-298 Kyle Wed, 21 Sep 2005 02:55:43 +0000 http://www.kyleandkelly.com/?p=281#comment-298 I think that may be why artists find themselves in this position to begin with--intellectual property is such a boring topic. That is, until you find yourself in Switchfoot's position. One positive: there's at least one band that's going to be much more informed about IP in the future. I think that may be why artists find themselves in this position to begin with–intellectual property is such a boring topic. That is, until you find yourself in Switchfoot’s position. One positive: there’s at least one band that’s going to be much more informed about IP in the future.

]]> By: Jeremy http://www.kyleandkelly.com/2005/09/19/civil-disobedience/comment-page-1/#comment-297 Jeremy Wed, 21 Sep 2005 02:19:48 +0000 http://www.kyleandkelly.com/?p=281#comment-297 I couldn't agree more. The only thing I would appreciate more was if the band had worked to insure that the copy protection wasn't there in the first place. I realize that contracts and licensing through the album and recording companies limit in some respects their ability to do this. However a more vocal outcry from artists to get the music published without these hindrances would, I think, go a long way toward raising awareness. It really is hard to communicate well all the difficulties with current IP law. Until you get down to trying to define such things as fair use and IP ownership the whole picture doesn't really get clear. I couldn’t agree more. The only thing I would appreciate more was if the band had worked to insure that the copy protection wasn’t there in the first place. I realize that contracts and licensing through the album and recording companies limit in some respects their ability to do this. However a more vocal outcry from artists to get the music published without these hindrances would, I think, go a long way toward raising awareness.

It really is hard to communicate well all the difficulties with current IP law. Until you get down to trying to define such things as fair use and IP ownership the whole picture doesn’t really get clear.

]]>