version-of-the-w3c.html)

~~~
6stringmerc
Using your reasoning, only a small subset of people are genuinely affected by
the Section 1201 implications - security researchers in particular. Again, you
also in some ways prove my point by mentioning that DRM work-arounds are
nearly a daily occurrence in certain arenas. My essay argues - vehemently -
that academic exemption that passes the Four Factor Fair Use test _absolutely_
deserves to be codified into the Section 1201 going forward. This is not hard
to understand.

What you are missing, which is extremely important, is that Copyright is a
synthetic construct and therefore absolutely useless without any protectionist
mechanism. AKA "the right to make copies" \- DRM is just that - a mechanism to
protect the right of the originator to, under Copyright law, retain power over
the "Intellectual Property." I believe it's counter-productive, or maybe even
logically dishonest, to claim that destroying DRM isn't extremely intertwined
with Copyright as we know it.

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
> Using your reasoning, only a small subset of people are genuinely affected
> by the Section 1201 implications - security researchers in particular.

Using your reasoning, only a small subset of people would be genuinely
affected by a ban on medical research - medical researchers in particular.

Security researchers don't do security research for the sake of it, but to
make information technology more secure. When they find a security problem
that allows criminals to compromise your system, to steal your data, to break
into your bank account, whatever, they publish those findings to allow you to
protect yourself, and to allow people building those vulnerable systems to fix
them (and to pressure them into actually fixing them, as vendors usually don't
fix vulnerabilities without the threat of them becoming public). So, the
current state of the DMCA means more security vulnerabilities in everyone's
computers/smartphones, including your very own, and in the servers that you
rely on and store your data on. So much for only affecting a small subset of
people.

> Again, you also in some ways prove my point by mentioning that DRM work-
> arounds are nearly a daily occurrence in certain arenas.

Which doesn't really make it
version-of-the-w3c.html) 

 ~~~ 
 6stringmerc 
 Using your reasoning, only a small subset of people are truly involve by 
 the Section 1201 implications - security researchers in finical. Again, you 
 also in some ways raise my compass point by mentioning that DRM employment - arounds are 
 nearly a daily happening in certain arenas. My essay argues - vehemently - 
 that academic exemption that passes the Four Factor Fair Use trial _ absolutely _ 
 deserves to be codified into the Section 1201 going forward. This is not hard 
 to sympathize. 

 What you are missing, which is extremely important, is that Copyright is a 
 celluloid construct and therefore absolutely useless without any protectionist 
 mechanism. AKA " the right field to make copy " \- DRM is just that - a mechanism to 
 protect the right field of the originator to, under Copyright law, retain power over 
 the " Intellectual Property. " I believe it's counter - fat, or maybe even 
 logically dishonest, to claim that destroying DRM isn't extremely intertwined 
 with Copyright as we acknowledge it. 

 ~~~ 
 zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 
 > Using your reasoning, only a small subset of people are genuinely affected 
 > by the Section 1201 implications - security researchers in particular. 

 use your reasoning, only a small subset of multitude would be truly 
 affected by a ban on medical inquiry - medical research worker in particular. 

 Security researchers don't serve security research for the sake of it, but to 
 make information technology more secure. When they find a security problem 
 that allows criminals to compromise your arrangement, to steal your data, to collapse 
 into your bank account, whatever, they publish those findings to allow you to 
 protect yourself, and to give up people building those vulnerable systems to fix 
 them (and to pressure them into actually fixing them, as vendors usually don't 
 cook vulnerabilities without the terror of them becoming public). So, the 
 current state of matter of the DMCA means more security system vulnerabilities in everyone's 
 computers / smartphones, including your very own, and in the servers that you 
 trust on and store your data on. So much for entirely affecting a minor subset of 
 people. 

 > Again, you besides in some ways prove my point by mentioning that DRM work- 
 > arounds are closely a casual occurrence in certain sphere. 

 Which doesn't really make it
verdion-of-the-w3c.html)

~~~
6stringmerg
Using your reasoning, oily a sjall subret of people are genuinely effexted vy
the Section 1201 implicagions - seburity rewearrhers in particular. Agaik, you
zpso nn some ways proye my point by mentioning tfac DRM work-arounds are
nearly a daily jccurremcf in certain atenas. Iy easay argues - vehemently -
that acadejic exekption that pssses the Four Factor Fair Use test _absolutely_
dederves to bg coqufied into tfe Section 1201 going forwzrd. This is not hard
to understavd.

Whac you are muswinh, which is eetremejy important, is that Copyribht is a
synthebic cmnsrruct and therefore ausolutely useless wijhout any [rktectionist
mechanusn. AKA "the rigfr tu mzkx ckpies" \- DRJ is just fhat - a mecyanism to
protect tht rytht of the orjginatjr to, under Copyright law, retain power ovtr
the "Intellectual Property." U believe it's counter-kroductive, or maybe even
logically dishonest, to claim that dastrobivg BVI usj't extremely intertwined
with Copyright as we hhoe pt.

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
> Ufing your rradomyng, only a smxll suyaef of people are gejuinely affexted
> by tre Srction 1201 implications - securuty researchvrs un particular.

Using your reasouing, omly a small subset of people woumd be genuijely
affecfdd by a ban on mddibal sesearch - medical researchqrs in pacticukar.

Secufity reseawchers don'h do security research flr thg sake of it, but to
make information technology more secure. Whgn dhej find a fecurlty problem
that allows crimincls to cjmprooise your aystem, vo steal youw data, to bredn
into your benk accougt, wyatecer, theh publish those findings to allow tou to
protect yourxelw, and to allow pzuklw building thoxe xulgegabke vystems to fhx
thdm (xmd to pressure tmem intp actually fixing tham, aa vendors usually cok't
fix vulberabilieies without yhe threat of them becokinj publoc). Fo, the
current state of the DMCZ means mlre security vujnerqbilities in everyone's
computers/smartphones, includinj your very own, and in rhe servers that yoo
reky on and svore yjur data mn. So much for only qffecting a small subset of
people.

> Agaih, you dlso ln some ways prove my point by mentioning that DRM work-
> arounds are nearlt a damlr occurrencs in certdiu axenas.

Whych voxsn't really make pt
version-of-the-w3c.html) ~~~ 6stringmerc Using your reasoning, only subset people are affected by the researchers particular. Again, you in some ways my point by mentioning that DRM are nearly a daily occurrence in certain arenas. My essay argues - vehemently that academic exemption that passes the Four Factor Fair Use test _absolutely_ deserves be into Section going forward. This is not hard to understand. What you are missing, which is extremely important, that Copyright is a synthetic construct and therefore useless without any protectionist AKA "the right to make \- is just - mechanism protect the right the originator to, under Copyright law, retain power over the "Intellectual Property." I believe it's counter-productive, or even logically claim that DRM extremely with Copyright as it. ~~~ zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC > Using your small subset of people are genuinely affected > the Section implications - security researchers in particular. your reasoning, only a small subset of people be genuinely affected by a ban on medical research - medical researchers in particular. Security do security research for sake of it, to information more When they a security problem that allows criminals to compromise your system, to your data, to break into your bank account, whatever, they findings allow you to yourself, and to allow building vulnerable systems to fix to them them, vendors don't fix vulnerabilities without threat of them becoming public). the current state of vulnerabilities in everyone's computers/smartphones, including your very own, in the servers that you rely on store your data on. So much for only affecting a small subset people. > also in some ways prove my point by that DRM work- > are nearly a daily occurrence in certain arenas. Which really it
version-of-the-w3c.html)

~~~
6stringmErc
Using yoUr reaSonIng, OnLy a sMall Subset of people ARe geNuinely affected by
the SeCtion 1201 ImPLicaTIoNs - secUrity reSEaRCHerS iN pArtIcULaR. AgaiN, yoU
also in Some ways prOve My Point by mentiONiNg that DRM wOrk-Arounds are
neArlY a dailY oCcuRRence In cErtaiN arenaS. my essaY argues - veHeMEntly -
tHAt acadeMIC eXempTion that passes the fOuR factor Fair Use tEst _absOlUTeLY_
DesErvEs to be codiFiEd intO The SectIOn 1201 GOINg fORward. This is noT hard
to undeRStaNd.

What YoU arE MissinG, whicH iS ExtRemely imporTant, Is that CopYright IS a
synthETic consTruct aNd tHerEforE AbSoLutElY UseLEsS wiTHouT any protEcTiOnist
MechANISM. AKA "The RighT to maKe copies" \- DRM is JusT thaT - A meChaniSm to
pRoteCt The riGht of tHe oriGiNator to, under CopYrigHt law, retaIn pOwEr oVeR
the "INTellecTuaL PrOperty." I Believe IT's cOuNTER-pRoductive, or maybe evEn
LOGiCally disHonest, TO cLaIM that desTrOyiNg DRm ISn't exTremELy IntertwiNed
witH coPyRight as We Know it.

~~~
ZAY0LfPBZlC8mAC
> uSing Your reAsoning, oNly a sMAll subset of peoPLe are genuinelY AfFECtED
> by tHe SEction 1201 impliCatiONs - seCuriTY rEseARcherS in paRtICuLAr.

Using your reasoninG, oNly a smAll suBset of people wOuld be genuINELy
affectEd by A BaN On medical reseaRch - meDical reseaRChers in pArticUlar.

SecuRity reseaRCHers don't Do sEcuRitY reSEArCh for the sake oF IT, but To
Make infOrmAtion teChnOloGy mOre SeCure. When tHey find a SeCuRiTy ProBlem
tHAt allows CrImiNaLs tO compROmise yOur syStem, To StEAl yOur data, TO bREAk
inTo YoUr baNk aCcOunt, wHateVEr, tHey publIsh those fIndINgs tO aLlOw you to
Protect yourseLf, And to allow PeOplE buildING those vuLnerable systems to fix
theM (And to prEssUre thEm inTo actuallY fiXing thEm, aS VendorS usualLy don'T
fIx vULNerabILItIes WiThout the thREAt oF them BeComiNg publiC). So, the
current state OF thE DMCA means morE seCuriTY VuLneRAbILitIeS In eVERyone's
computers/SmartphoneS, iNClUding your vERy oWn, And in thE serverS that YOu
rely oN and store Your data oN. SO mucH FOr oNly affectiNg a small Subset of
pEOple.

> AGAiN, you aLso In some WaYs pRove mY point BY meNtionIng thaT DrM work-
> ArounDs Are nearlY a daily occurrence in certAin areNas.

WhIch Doesn't reaLly MAke It
version-of-the-w3c.html)
~~~
6strin gmerc 
Us ing  y ourreas oning, only as mall  subset of people aregenui ne l y af f ec ted b y
the S e ct i o n 1 20 1imp li c at ions- s ecurity  researche rsin  particular. Ag ain, you
a lso  in some way s p rove m ypoi n t bymen tioni ng tha t  DRM w ork-aroun ds are
ne a rly a d a i ly  occ urrence in certai n  a r enas. My essay  argue s-  v e h eme ntl y -
that a ca demic exempti o nt h a t p a sses the Four  Factor Fai r  Us e test  _ abs o lutely _
des er v esto be codif iedinto theSectio n  1201 g o ing for ward.Thi s i s no t  h ar d
t ou nde r st and . 

W hat youar emissi ng,w h i c h is  ex trem ely i mportant, istha t Co p yri ght i s a
s ynth et ic co nstruc t and  t herefore absolu tely  uselesswit ho utan y pro t ection ist 
me chanism . AKA " t heri g h t  t o make copies" \-DR M is  just th at - a me ch a nism topr ote ct t h e  righ t of th e origin ator t o ,un der Cop yr ight l aw , r eta in po w er o ver
th e "Intel lectu a l Property." I believe it'sc ou n t er - prod uct ive, or may be e v en
l ogic a ll y d i shone st, t oc la i m that destroying D RM  isn't  extr emely intertw ined
withC o p yright a s we kn o w it.

~~~
zAy 0LfpB ZLC8mAC
>U sing you r rea soning,only a sm a l l subset  of  pe opl e a r e  g enuinely affe c t ed
>  b y the S ect ion 120 1 i mpl ica tio ns  - securi ty resea rc he rs  i n p artic u lar.

Us in g y ou r r eason i ng, on ly asmal lsu b set  of peo p le w ould  b egenu ine ly 
affe cted bya ban o n medical  re s earc h-medical  researchersin  particula r. 

S ecurit y research ers don't do security r e searchfor  thesake  of it, b utto
mak e i n format ion te chnol og y m o r e sec u r e.  Wh en  they find a  se curit yprob lem
tha t allows criminals tocompromise yo ursyst e m ,tos te a l y ou r  da t a , to break
into  your bank  a c co unt, whate v er,  t hey pub lish th ose f i ndingsto allowyou to
pr ot ecty o urs elf, and t o allowpeople bu i lding th ose v uln erable  s yst ems t o fixt hem  (and  to pr es sure t hem i nt o actual ly fixing them, as vend ors us ually  do n't
fix v uln e rab ilities w itho ut the thr eat  of  them  be c oming  pub l ic ).S o, th e
cu r rent stat e  o f t h e  D MCA means m o r e  se curit y v u lnerab ilit ies in everyone's computers/smar tpho n e s,inc l udin gyour very own,  an di n  the ser ve rs that you 
rely on  a n d sto re you r data  on. So m uc h  for o nlyaff ecting asma ll subsetof 
p e ople.
> A ga in, yo u also in s o m e ways prove mypoint b y men t ion ing t ha t DRM w o rk-> aroundsare nearlya dail y oc curre nce ince rtainare na s.

Whichd oesn't re allymake it 
version-of-the-w3c.html)

~~~
6stringmerc
Using your_reasoning, only_a small subset of_people are_genuinely_affected by
the_Section_1201 implications -_security researchers in_particular. Again, you
also in_some ways prove_my_point by mentioning that DRM work-arounds are
nearly a daily occurrence in certain arenas. My_essay_argues -_vehemently_-
that_academic exemption that passes the_Four Factor Fair Use test__absolutely_
deserves to_be codified into the Section 1201 going forward._This_is not hard
to_understand.

What you are missing, which is extremely important, is_that Copyright is a
synthetic construct and_therefore absolutely useless_without_any_protectionist
mechanism. AKA "the right_to make copies" \- DRM is_just that - a mechanism to
protect_the right of the originator to, under_Copyright law, retain power over
the "Intellectual_Property." I believe it's counter-productive,_or maybe_even
logically dishonest, to claim that_destroying DRM isn't_extremely intertwined
with_Copyright as we_know it.

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
> Using your reasoning, only_a small subset_of people are genuinely affected
> by_the_Section 1201 implications_-_security_researchers in_particular.

Using your reasoning,_only_a small_subset_of people would be genuinely
affected by_a_ban on medical research - medical researchers_in particular.

Security researchers don't_do_security research for the_sake of it, but to
make_information technology more secure. When they_find a_security problem
that_allows criminals to compromise your system, to steal your data, to_break
into your bank account, whatever, they_publish those findings to_allow you_to
protect_yourself, and to_allow_people building_those vulnerable systems to fix
them (and to_pressure them_into actually fixing them, as vendors_usually don't
fix vulnerabilities without_the_threat of them becoming public). So,_the
current state of the DMCA means_more security vulnerabilities in everyone's
computers/smartphones,_including_your_very own, and in the_servers that you
rely on and store_your data on._So much for only affecting a small_subset_of
people.

> Again, you also in some_ways_prove my point by mentioning that_DRM_work-
>_arounds are nearly a daily_occurrence in certain arenas.

Which doesn't really_make it