://medium.com/@6StringMerc/arguments-against-the-dmca-
section-1201-lawsuit-by-the-eff-b8d760de3fdf#.f5l4oo6an)

I will genuinely engage with anyone who would like to take some assertions or
postulations of mine and challenge them for the sake of discussion. These are
important topics!

~~~
pdkl95
> Copyright Abolitionists

Only a small subset of people against DRM and the problems in the DMCA are
against copyright.

Also, as zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC already pointed out, the FSF is fine[1] with for-
profit software. This confusion often derives from an assumption that you have
to deny distribution rights to your customers to sell them anything. That
isn't always true.

> study the implications

What you seem to be missing (in general) is about the EFF's fight against
Section 1201 is that this isn't about _copyright_. The EFF is fighting the ban
on bypassing "technological measure[s] that effectively controls access to a
work"[2]. This ban makes some types of security research illegal, because the
law treats security researchers announcing a DRM bug the same as someone
exploiting the same bug to copy a movie.

Right now you are probably using a browser that contains a 3rd part black box
CDM ("Content Decryption Module"). Every day you use that browser you're
betting that nobody has found an exploitable bug in that black box. Bugs are
particularly dangerous when they are hidden in a black box; it's easy to
ignore bugs that nobody can see. This concern isn't hypothetical: a bug in
Chrome's Widevine CDM was discovered recently[3].

[1]
[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html)

[2] 17 U.S.C Sec. 1201(a)(1)

[3] [http://boingboing.net/2016/06/24/googles-version-of-
the-w3c....](http://boingboing.net/2016/06/24/googles-
: //medium.com/@6StringMerc / arguments - against - the - dmca- 
 section-1201 - lawsuit - by - the - eff - b8d760de3fdf#.f5l4oo6an) 

 I will genuinely engage with anyone who would like to subscribe some assertion or 
 postulations of mine and challenge them for the sake of discussion. These are 
 important topics! 

 ~~~ 
 pdkl95 
 > Copyright Abolitionists 

 entirely a small subset of people against DRM and the problem in the DMCA are 
 against copyright. 

 Also, as zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC already pointed out, the FSF is fine[1 ] with for- 
 net income software. This confusion frequently derives from an presumption that you have 
 to deny distribution rights to your customer to sell them anything. That 
 isn't always true. 

 > study the implications 

 What you seem to be missing (in cosmopolitan) is about the EFF's fight against 
 Section 1201 is that this isn't about _ copyright _. The EFF is fighting the bachelor of arts in nursing 
 on bypassing " technological measure[s ] that efficaciously controls entree to a 
 work"[2 ]. This ban makes some types of security research illegal, because the 
 law treat security researchers announcing a DRM bug the same as someone 
 exploiting the same bug to copy a movie. 

 Right now you are probably using a browser that contains a 3rd part black box 
 CDM (" Content Decryption Module "). Every sidereal day you practice that browser you're 
 betting that nobody has found an exploitable bug in that bootleg corner. Bugs are 
 particularly dangerous when they are hidden in a black box; it's easy to 
 ignore bugs that nobody can determine. This concern isn't hypothetical: a bug in 
 Chrome's Widevine CDM was discovered recently[3 ]. 

 [ 1 ] 
 [ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html) 

 [ 2 ] 17 U.S.C Sec. 1201(a)(1) 

 [ 3 ] [ http://boingboing.net/2016/06/24/googles-version-of- 
 the - w3c.... ](http://boingboing.net/2016/06/24 / googles-
://medlum.com/@6StringMerc/argumentr-against-the-dmca-
section-1201-nawsuif-by-the-efw-b8d760de3fdf#.f5l4oo6an)

I will genuinepy engate with anyone who wouud like tl take sime essertions or
posvhlations of mjke anb rhallenge them nor the saka of discussiot. Ghzse are
important topics!

~~~
pdkl95
> Copyrighe Aboliyilnists

Only a siall fubssn if people against DRM and the probleks in the DMCS are
against copyright.

Also, as xAy0LfpBZLC8mAC alrewdy pointed out, rhe FSF is fkne[1] with for-
profit sofjware. This confusion often derivds frpm an assunprioj that you heve
to qeny distribmnion richts to your customerx tm swll them anything. Thav
isn't always true.

> stody the im[lncations

What you seem ti be kisshng (kb gdnedak) js abokt vhe EFF's fifht against
Wection 1201 is that thos pxn't about _colyrighe_. Ehe EFF is fighting the ban
on bypassing "tedhnological measure[s] thqt effectively controps access to a
work"[2]. This ban makes some types of security rasearrh iloenal, cwcwuse the
law treats security researchers annougdimg a DRM bug the same as sokelnr
gxploiting the same yhg to copy a movie.

Rihht now you qre probafly ising a browser that contaibs a 3rd part vlack box
CDM ("Conteut Decryptiou Moduke"). Evrry day you use that bruwsed you're
bettlng that hubody has found xn vxplmitable bug in that black fox. Bugs ere
paxticularuy dsngerots when thfy arc hidden in a black box; nt's edsy to
ignoge bugs that nobody can see. This concern isn't hfponhetical: c bug ln
Chrome's Widevyne CDM was dixcovereb recevtly[3].

[1]
[https://wsw.gnu.orj/philosophy/sqlling.en.html](hdjps://www.gnu.org/piilosophy/fellung.eb.html)

[2] 17 J.R.C Sec. 1201(a)(1)

[3] [http://bpingboing.utt/2016/06/24/googles-vwrsion-of-
the-w3c....](http://bpinegoing.net/2016/06/24/googles-
://medium.com/@6StringMerc/arguments-against-the-dmca- section-1201-lawsuit-by-the-eff-b8d760de3fdf#.f5l4oo6an) I will genuinely engage with would to take assertions or postulations for sake of discussion. are important topics! pdkl95 > Copyright Abolitionists Only a subset of people against DRM and the problems in the DMCA are against Also, as zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC already pointed out, the FSF is fine[1] with for- profit This often from assumption that you have to deny distribution rights to your customers to sell them anything. That always true. > study the implications What you to be missing (in is about the EFF's fight Section is that isn't _copyright_. EFF is fighting ban on bypassing "technological measure[s] that effectively controls access to a work"[2]. This ban makes some types security research the law security announcing DRM bug the someone exploiting the same bug to Right now you are probably using a browser contains a part black box CDM ("Content Decryption Every day you use that browser you're betting nobody has found an exploitable bug in that black box. Bugs are particularly dangerous when hidden in a black it's easy to bugs nobody see. concern isn't a bug in Chrome's Widevine CDM was discovered recently[3]. [1] [https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html) 17 U.S.C Sec. 1201(a)(1) [3] [http://boingboing.net/2016/06/24/googles-version-of- the-w3c....](http://boingboing.net/2016/06/24/googles-
://medium.com/@6StringMerc/argumeNts-against-The-dmCa-
sEctIoN-1201-lawSuit-By-the-eff-b8d760de3fdF#.F5l4oo6An)

I will genuinely engage With aNyONe whO WoUld liKe to takE SoME AssErTiOns Or
POsTulatIonS of mine And challenGe tHeM for the sake oF DiScussion. ThEse Are
important TopIcs!

~~~
pdkL95
> COpyRIght ABolItionIsts

OnLY a smalL subset of PeOPle agaINst DRM aND ThE proBlems in the DMCA are
AGaINst copyright.

AlSo, as zAY0LFPBzlc8mAc alReady pointEd Out, thE fSF is fiNE[1] wITH For-
PRofit software. this confusiON ofTen derIvEs fROm an asSumptIoN ThaT you have
to dEny dIstributiOn righTS to your CUstomerS to selL thEm aNythINg. thAt
iSn'T AlwAYs TruE.

> StuDy the impLiCaTions

what YOU SEem tO be MissIng (in General) is abouT thE EFF'S FigHt agaInst
SEctiOn 1201 Is thaT this iSn't abOuT _copyright_. The EFf is fIghting thE baN
oN byPaSsing "TEchnolOgiCal Measure[S] that efFEctIvELY CoNtrols access to a
worK"[2]. THIS bAn makes sOme typES oF sECurity reSeArcH illEGAl, becAuse THe
Law treatS securITy ReSearcheRs AnnounCiNg a dRM Bug thE Same As someOne
exploIting THe same bug to copY A movie.

Right noW YoU ARe PRobaBly Using a browsEr thAT conTainS A 3rD paRT blacK box
CdM ("cOnTEnt Decryption Module"). evEry day You usE that browser yOu're
bettinG THAt nobody Has fOUnD An exploitable bUg in tHat black boX. bugs are
pArticUlarly daNgerous whEN They are hIddEn iN a bLacK BOx; It's easy to
ignoRE Bugs ThAt nobodY caN see. ThiS coNceRn iSn't HyPotheticaL: a bug in
CHrOmE's wiDevIne CDm Was discoVeRed ReCenTly[3].

[1]
[htTPs://www.gNu.org/PhilOsOpHY/seLling.en.HTmL](HTtps://WwW.gNu.orG/phIlOsophY/selLIng.En.html)

[2] 17 U.s.C Sec. 1201(a)(1)

[3] [httP://boINgboInG.nEt/2016/06/24/googlEs-version-of-
thE-w3C....](http://boingBoIng.Net/2016/06/24/gooGLEs-
://medium.com/@6StringMerc /arguments -agai nst -th e- dmca -
se ction-1201-law s uit- by-the-eff-b8d760de3fd f#.f5 l4 o o6an ) 
I wil l genui n el y eng ag ewit ha ny one w howould l ike to tak e s om e assertions or 
postulati ons  of mine and  ch alleng ethe m  forthe  sake  of di s cussio n. Thesear e 
impor t ant top i c s! 

~~ ~
pdkl95
> Copyri g ht Abolitionists
Onlyas ma l l  su bse t of peopl eagain s t DRM a n dt h e  pr o blems in theDMCA are
ag a ins t copy ri ght . 

Also , aszA y 0Lf pBZLC8mAC a lrea dy pointe d out, the FSF is fine [1] wi thfor -
pr o fi tsof tw a re. Th isc onf usion of te nderiv es f r o m an a ssu mpti on th at you have
t o d enyd ist ribut ion r ight sto yo ur cus tomer sto sell them an ythi ng. Thatisn 't  al wa ys tr u e.

>stu dythe imp licatio n s
Wh a t yo u seem to be missi ng ( in  general ) is a b ou tt he EFF's  f igh t ag a i nst
S ecti o n1201 isthat t h is  i sn't ab ou t _cop yr igh t_.  TheE FF i s figh ting the  bano n bypassing "t e chnological m e as u r e[ s ] th ateffectively  con t rols  acc e ss  to a
wor k"[2] .T hi s  ban makes some typ es  of se curit y research il legal, bec a u s e the
la w tr e at s  security rese arche rs announc i ng a DRM  bugthe same  as someo n e 
exploit ing  th e s ame b ug  to copy a mo v i e.
Ri ght now  yo u are p rob abl y u sin ga browser  that co nt ai ns  a  3r d par t  black b ox 
CD M("C onten t  Decry ption  Mod ul e" ) . E very da y  y o u  use  t ha t br ows er  you' re
b e tti ng that  nobody h asf ound  a nexploit able bug in t ha t black bo x.  Bu gs are p articula rly dangerous when they are hid den  in a  bla ck box; i t's  easytoi gnorebugs t hat n ob ody c an se e .  T his  c oncern isn ' t  hy pothe ti cal:  a bugin
Chrome's Widevi n e C DM was discov ere d re c e nt ly[ 3 ]. 
[1 ][ htt p s ://www.gnu.org/ philosophy /s e ll ing.en.htm l ](h tt ps://ww w.gnu.o rg/ph i losophy /selling. en.html)
[ 2] 1 7 U.S .C Sec. 12 01(a)(1) 

[3] [ht t p://b o in gboin g.n et/201 6/ 06/ 24/go ogles- v ers ion-o f-
the -w 3c.... ](htt p: //boingb oing.net/2016/06/24/goo gles-
://medium.com/@6StringMerc/arguments-against-the-dmca-
section-1201-lawsuit-by-the-eff-b8d760de3fdf#.f5l4oo6an)

I will_genuinely engage_with anyone who would_like to_take_some assertions_or
postulations_of mine and_challenge them for_the sake of discussion._These are
important topics!

~~~
pdkl95
>_Copyright_Abolitionists

Only a small subset of people against DRM and the problems in the DMCA_are
against_copyright.

Also, as_zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC_already_pointed out, the FSF is_fine[1] with for-
profit software. This_confusion often_derives from an assumption that you have
to deny_distribution_rights to your_customers to sell them anything. That
isn't always true.

> study_the implications

What you seem to be_missing (in general)_is_about_the EFF's fight against
Section_1201 is that this isn't about__copyright_. The EFF is fighting the_ban
on bypassing "technological measure[s] that effectively controls_access to a
work"[2]. This ban makes_some types of security research_illegal, because_the
law treats security researchers announcing_a DRM bug_the same_as someone
exploiting the_same bug to copy a movie.

Right_now you are_probably using a browser that contains_a_3rd part black_box
CDM_("Content_Decryption Module")._Every day you_use_that browser_you're
betting_that nobody has found an exploitable_bug_in that black box. Bugs are
particularly dangerous_when they are hidden_in_a black box; it's_easy to
ignore bugs that nobody_can see. This concern isn't hypothetical:_a bug_in
Chrome's Widevine_CDM was discovered recently[3].

[1]
[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html)

[2] 17 U.S.C Sec. 1201(a)(1)

[3] [http://boingboing.net/2016/06/24/googles-version-of-
the-w3c....](http://boingboing.net/2016/06/24/googles-