The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is clearly against circumvention and reverse engineering. Section 1201 of the act, the “anti-circumvention” provision, bans the “production of dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (DRMs) that control access to copyrighted works.” It also bans “the act of circumventing an access control (DRM).” Basically, it’s illegal to make tools that remove DRMs (digital rights management schemes) or to use these tools. This ranges from ripping a CD to a digital file, removing the DRM from iTunes songs, or creating “black box” mobile devices to work with any carrier. So it’s not only technically illegal to rip a CD, it’s could be considered illegal for somebody else to then listen to the audio file. The DMCA puts heavy restrictions on circumvention, reverse engineering, and users of circumvented/reversed engineering products.
The question then becomes, is it really ethical for companies to use DRM schemes? In essence it seems like you do not actually own the products that use DRMs. Do you really own a phone if you can only use it with one carrier? John Deere has essentially shown this is what the companies think as well. According to comments submitted to the US Copyright Office farmers don’t actually own John Deere tractors, they simply receive “an implied license for the life of the vehicle to operate the vehicle.” GM has made similar arguments, saying owners of automobiles do not own the software behind it and can thus not remove DRMs. This seems to be setting very dangerous precedents, destroying the idea of actually owning something. When buying a tractor or car, the dealer is not going to tell you that you’re paying thousands of dollars to simply license the vehicle. This line of thinking can be abused so that you never actually own anything that has software running behind it, and surprising types of products have software running behind them today.
Back to the original question, whether or not companies are acting ethically by using DRMs. I would say, like many of the topics we have covered, it depends how the DRM is being used. If the only purpose of the DRM is to prevent the illegal distribution of copyrighted materials, I am completely fine with it. It is clear that this was the original intent of DRMs in theory, but not how they are actually used in practice. The issue is how vague and inconsistent the language and interpretations of the DMCA is. The original intent of the law was not to completely deny ownership to users, but that is essentially how the law is used today. So I would say, in theory, companies could act ethically using DRMs. In practice, they almost never are.
Now to the other side of the question, whether or not users are acting ethically by building DRM removal tools or using these tools. Again I think it depends on the builders or user’s intentions. If they are simply trying to better a product they already own (i.e. unlocking their phone, fixing bugs, etc.) then they are completely acting ethically. However, if they are doing this to illegally distribute copyrighted software, I cannot say they are acting ethically. I do not buy the argument that this is ethical because copyright owners are wealthy, or because “everybody is doing it.” I think it is unethical no matter what. However, simply fixing a product you own is certainly ethical.
cse40175blog 