Another on-the-button column by John Naughton this morning, describing the magical list of hex that renders a BluRay DVD copyable by all, and what happened when Digg tried to stop its users from posting it. The Observer coyly only prints 09F9 - but a Google Search for that reveals the lot, including the rather splendid 09f9.com - in over 2.6 million web pages. (The US’s DMCA appears to make this number illegal to post, since it could be used to illegally gain access to copyrighted material).
My own internal jury’s still out on DRM. One part of me hates it - if I buy music, then that’s mine to use personally however I wish. One part of me accepts it as a sad reality of life online today, given the undoubtedly large amount of Napster/BitTorrent-esque stealing/sharing that goes on from morally bankrupt users. One part of me defends DRM as “if companies want to do silly things like that, fine, but respect their decision and don’t steal/share their work without their permission”. One part of me might use ‘illegal’ services to get albums that the record companies have withdrawn from their catalogue, thus leaving me no other way to get the music I would have legally bought had the record company not made this impossible.
But, no matter. I’ve edited some of the hex codes out in my header, even though I’m not even sure whether the part of the DMCA that stops US citizens posting this seemingly innocuous code applies to us in the European Union [yet]. I don’t fully appreciate whether I am now liable (by UK law) since I’ve linked to the full code on this web page (but if so, Google’s clearly 2.5 million times more liable than I am). This shows legal absurdity on a massive scale, and a really obvious and clear demonstration of how many legal people Just Don’t Get It.
—update— There’s a good legal viewpoint on EFF’s website, for US law. An equivalent for UK law would be good.
—update2— The clever Wil Harris has posted a good background primer on what 09-f9 is - and apparently, it’s now useless anyway…
.
On the legal-purchase point, I was wondering last week about something, so, given it’s related, perhaps someone might be able to help me with the below:
I want to buy a (quite old) CD album.
- I can buy it new from Amazon, for £12. Some of this money therefore goes back to the record company.
- I can buy it used from Amazon/eBay, for £3. None of this money goes to the record company. £3 goes to the person who currently owns the CD.
- I can download it for free using BitTorrent. No money changes hands.
Presumably, #2 is legal, otherwise Amazon/eBay wouldn’t be able to do it. But how does the difference between #2 and #3 square with the “giving money to the artist” argument that the record companies talk about? In #2, since a third party is benefiting in financial terms from re-selling this CD, am I actually doing better if I download it instead?
My own past experience is that I downloaded an album from the Eels via Napster years ago, listened to it, and liked it. I’ve now bought at least three Eels albums, other Eels downloads, and went to see an Eels concert last year (rather misguidedly, it ought to be said, it was a bit miserable). Have the Eels benefitted from that initial illegal download? I’d think so.
entries