Tag: CPSC183-Fall09

You’re tied in a knot, but I’m not gonna get caught – by “Aditya K”

~ bradevanrosen ~ 3 Comments

After from scrutiny from the FCC, AT&T announced that it was allowing for VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) on its 3G networks. Yes, this includes programs like Google Voice on the iPhone. Josh Silverman of Skype lauded AT&T’s move, saying how this is the right step, not only for Skype, but for the Internet in general. Apple was “very happy” too and will add VoIP applications to their App Store.

The FCC—which was investigating AT&T’s competitive (or anti-competitive) actions when it came to (supposedly) blocking Google’s Voice program—will be voting on network neutrality rules at the end of this month. The net neutrality rules would apply to all broadband networks, which include wireless ones. AT&T’s actions, though very beneficial to the cause of network neutrality, come as a big surprise:

AT&T has never been too supportive of net neutrality, being one of the largest ISPs around. However, a few weeks ago, they surprised everyone by claiming that Google—one of the biggest supporters of net neutrality—was being hypocritical.

Google Voice utilizes a system where they block high-cost calls to certain rural telephone numbers. This is because many rural phone companies practice “traffic pumping,” which means that they charge exorbitant amounts of money to connect to these numbers, and they share their revenues with phone sex and conference call lines.

Just a few years ago, AT&T tried blocking calls to these phone numbers, but the FCC said no. AT&T is known as a common carrier, which is a business that is not allowed to discriminate because it carries out a public service (in this case, telephone calls). In AT&T’s eyes, Google Voice is doing the same exact thing that they tried to do—and getting away with it.

So basically, AT&T is calling Google out on not being net neutral, citing the fourth principle of the FCC’s open internet rules (“consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers”). Google Voice either acts as a pseudo-network provider, or it acts as an application—either way, it must abide.

Google responded almost immediately, claiming that those neutrality principles should not apply to Google Voice because: Voice is a free software application (thus no common carrier laws should apply); Voice isn’t replacing phone services because you need a wireless/land line to use it; and Voice is invite-only currently.

The major questions that arise are: Can Google be considered a common carrier with its Voice application? Should its call discrimination be bound by net neutrality principles? The fact that neutrality applies to phone services but not to software applications that utilize the phone services seems a bit iffy. Though the FCC’s rules specifically apply to network providers, perhaps they should reevaluate their rules to apply broadly. Though AT&T’s line of reasoning may be flawed, perhaps they do have a point.

In re Bilski, Software Patents, and FOSS – by “Benjamin S”

~ bradevanrosen ~ 2 Comments

Our discussion and readings in class last week talked a lot about software and copyright; everyone by now has a solid idea about what GPL and BSD-style licenses mean, so I thought I’d digress into related part of the topic that we haven’t spent so much time on and that doesn’t look like we’ll be seeing too much of later.

So, yesterday brought exciting news of another amicus brief being filed for In re Bilski, this one by the Software Freedom Law Center (for detailed analysis, Groklaw’s summary is terrific).  For those who don’t know (which I’m assuming is most of the audience, here): Bilski concerns patentability of abstract ideas.  Bernard Bilski and Rand Warsaw  filed for a patent on “a method of hedging risks in commodities trading”.  At no point did the patent application involve an invention of any kind; Bilski claims that his patent application is valid, and that innovation in business is just as valuable and needs patent protection just as much as true technological innovation.  Bilski’s patent was rejected by the USPTO; he appealed to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, where he was also denied; and Bilski at last appealed to the Federal Circuit Court.  Bilski appealed to the Supreme Court and was accepted on June 1 of this year.

Now, Bilski is a very big deal.  The Federal Circuit decision held that the machine-or-transformation test should be the only test for the eligibility of a patent, rejecting several other tests (some of which have been used in other decisions, though never in Supreme Court cases) .  The machine-or-transformation test states that “A claimed process is surely patent-eligible under § 101 if: (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing.”  At every court, Bilski’s patent has been rejected for various different reasons; the real question is how far-reaching the case will become.

What does this have to do with free software, you ask?  Everything, essentially.  While we’ve focused on copyright in class, plenty of software is patented, too.  Take FAT tables, for one: the file system that’s used on your USB flash drive, that is well-supported and implemented by every operating system that matters.  It’s what lets you plug a flash drive into a Mac, dump some files on it, then go pull those files off on a Windows machine.  Microsoft holds the patent on that one; last year they caused a gigantic ruckus when they sued TomTom (a company that writes Linux-based GPS systems) over violating that patent.  The lawsuit threatened the entire Linux community (because Linux includes FAT support); the buzz died down after TomTom settled the case, but plenty in the free software community are still uneasy.

Most free software types, including the Free Software Foundation, the Software Freedom Law Center, and End Software Patents are opposed to the idea.  Plenty of them oppose software copyrights too, but with the advent of the GPL, the FOSS community has learned how to make copyright work for them, not against.  And software patents have HUGE problems; there is an entire industry known as “patent-trolling”, in which companies do nothing but obtain or file software patents on obvious ideas, and then sue existing companies for patent infringement.  The patent-troll ecosystem is enabled by the deplorable state of the USPTO (huge backlogs, huge rates of patent approval for non-patentable material, technologically incompetent patent inspectors, etc. etc. etc.).  And it’s worst in high-tech.  Major players acknowledge that the system is broken, but everybody still plays the game; big companies throw their weight around, threatening smaller groups (and each other) with ruinous patent-infringement lawsuits, sometimes for purposes of naked extortion.

There are all kinds of reasons to dislike software patents; see the End Software Patents wiki for the laundry list.  While copyright’s not likely to get fixed anytime soon, Bilski creates an opportunity for the court to make a huge improvement.  There are amicus briefs on all sides, and the rosters lined up here have a lot to say about how this might come out.  Larry Lessig gave up on copyright reform because vested business interests are more powerful and better-connected than would-be reformers; but there are vested business interests on all sides of Bilski. There are financial groups (American Express, Accenture) saying Bilski should be overturned and business method patents should be allowed.  Microsoft, Dell, and IBM, among others, argue that business method patents should be dropped but that software patents should survive.  FOSS supporters like the EFF, FSF, SFLC and Red Hat have urged the court to invalidate software patents as well.  It’s likely that any decision the court makes will improve the state of things; here’s hoping they make the right one.

Google Wave! – by “David K”

~ bradevanrosen ~ 4 Comments

Google’s Wave is the latest technology whose whole business plan depends on distributing the source code and having multiple developers work to improve and elaborate on the app beyond Google’s control.

Wave is Google’s proposed replacement for email, and it is a sort of combined Gmail, Gchat, Facebook, Google Docs, and Yahoo games.  The core unit is a “wave”, which is a topic many users can be invited to, inside which multiple threads can be started consisting of “blips”, like messages.  It’s more dynamic than just a forum, because all users work on all the content in real time, and can rearrange and restructure the whole wave, replacing it with a conclusion when a concensus is reached, or anything else.  Google stores the history so important information is not in danger of being lost in this way.  Here is a more in-depth explanation.

Google depends on third-party developers in 3 key ways.   First, the wave interface, like email, can support multiple implementations, so this will allow applications like Thunderbird to adapt to user preferences for how to represent the wave abstractions.  To this effect, Google has published the code for OT, its operation transformation framework, which is what allows all users to edit the wave concurrently, so that developers can match it with the high level of consistency it requires.

Second, Wave will support robots, bots which have the same privileges and status as users, so they can edit waves, and will allow users to do things like translate waves between languages in real time or interact with other businesses sites like twitter.  This can allow Wave to be used as a back-end for the business practices of other sites.

Finally, Wave will support a gadget system, so waves can include things like chess games, group piano collaboration, or working together making a route on a google map.  Developers can add whatever they like onto this to enable any kind of collaborative project.

One of Google’s biggest worries is that the OT protocol for editing simultaneously will be too complex for developers to be able to make their own functioning apps.  It’s offering as much support as possible for this and is going to open up the fully documented code for its own application shortly.  Another worry is that the interface itself will be too complicated, not just for companies to make implementations for, but for users to catch on to.

It’s a big question whether users will accept this as a replacement for email, or whether they’ll prefer the old stability linear nature of email.  Email and chat might be enough–I can’t see any way I’d really use google Wave at the moment.  But often the uses of a program expand beyond what it was originally intended for, and maybe google is acknowledging this by having very few originally intended uses and counting on them expanding after time.  If this catches on, proprietary software will seem even more obsolete.

Free and Proprietary Software: Google’s Balancing Act – by “Eric F”

~ bradevanrosen ~ 1 Comment

Free Software has pushed itself into the spotlight with Mozilla Firefox and Linux.  Businesses, while wary of its philosophy, are beginning to understand its usefulness.  Google, notably, has tried to work closely with the open source community, as both an user and a contributor.

One of their most recent projects, the Android operating system for mobile phones, was built by Google and then released under the Apache license to the open source community.  Android was initially met with some controversy, especially given its licensing.  Instead of licensing under GPL, Google chose the Apache license, which allows for proprietary modifications be made to Android, so long as the copyright notice and disclaimer are preserved.  Android was released in Q4 2008 and Google has since benefited from the work of programmers, who have developed ‘mods’ aiming to increasing Android’s functionality.

However, on September 25th of this year, one of the Android community’s most prominent ‘modders,’ Steve Kondik, received a Cease and Desist letter from Google.  Steve Kondik had been distributing a ROM called Cyanogen, which was built from the Android framework.  The problem lay not in that Kondik was distributing Android, which was open source, but that he was distributing Google’s core, but proprietary, apps, Gmail, Google Maps, etc.  These apps were part of the “Google Experience” phones and were licensed through the phone manufacturers.  Therefore, while Cyanogen could be continued to be developed and distributed, Google’s apps would need to be removed and anyone who installed Cyanogen would be left without them.  Normally, this would be a minor issue.  However, Google’s apps were central to the Android experience, with the average user expecting  Google’s apps to come baked in.  Without them, any development would be crippled.

Since, Google has experienced a tremendous backlash on the Android community.  While everyone assents to Google’s legal right and its self interest (Google, in a blog post responding to the controversy, has stated that, “Unauthorized distribution of this software harms us just like it would any other business, even if it’s done with the best of intentions.”), many insist that leaving developers such as Kondik alone is better for everyone, especially Google’s reputation among developers.

This issue has clarified the important difference between free software and open source.  And while this issue may have hurt Google’s reputation or even dampened developer enthusiasm, it is important to remember that mobile networks remain extremely closed and manufacturers, as they tentatively take steps towards an open source platform, are another key part of innovation.  Google’s demonstration of its willingness to protect proprietary software on this open system may ensure that more devices are developed for Android, thus increasing its relevance and hopefully its market share.

The resolution to this particular story has been predominantly positive.  Developers, including Cyanogen, have formed the Open Android Alliance, which is dedicated to developing open source alternatives to Google’s primary applications.  Kondik, himself, blogged on the Cyanogen site that “[a] lot of people are helping to work many of these issues out, notably the guys from Google (Dan and JBQ) who manage the open-source project.”

Given the community of developers and Google’s private interests, conflicts were bound to happen.  Yet, the compromise that Google has struck – making its rights clear while working the community – seems to be the right way forward.  Android will continue to be developed in ways outside of Google’s control, but will nonetheless increase user usage of the internet and, by extension, Google’s services.  And the ordinary customers, outside of the open source community, who have never heard of Android and know of ‘open source’ only as a catch phrase, will not care, so long as Android remains a good user experience.  As stated in our Two Bits reading, “Giving away the Communicator source code in 1998 endeared Netscape to geeks and confused investors; it was ignored by customers.”

Net Neutrality, A Short Introduction – by “Andrew K”

~ bradevanrosen ~ 2 Comments

Hi everyone,

It will be my goal in this (hopefully not too long) post to introduce the concept of Network Neutrality. And to dispel any illusions of objectivity: I am in favor of Net Neutrality (and so should you!)

The concept of Network Neutrality is simple: treat all network data equally, regardless of who is sending it or who is receiving it. That means that the ISPs should treat data from Joe’s website the same as that from Yahoo!. This is an idea that we take for granted, but it is important in preserving the freedom that the internet presents for innovation and development of new applications and ideas.

So why should we care? The internet service providers want to establish a “tiered” internet, one with different levels of speed and bandwidth. They would charge more for the fastest tier and less for the slower ones. This means that traffic from corporations with money would dominate the internet, as smaller entities would be sending data in the slow lane. In this system, the net is not neutral; data from one source is treated differently based on the source.

This could lead to big problems, proponents of Net Neutrality say. In such a case, the ISPs would effectively control which sites you could see and have the power to block what they don’t want. If such a system was in place when Skype was first made, it would have been squashed. The ISP, knowing Skype would threaten their services, would block it and make it unavailable. The FCC chairman Genachowski admits even seeing one ISP block certain political views.

These threats should not be seen as conspiracy theories, and Save The Internet has cited ISP executives making their goals clear here. The opponents of Net Neutrality are generally affiliated with the big ISP’s, who would benefit greatly from having this monopolistic power. Feel free to call me out on this if you think otherwise!

Under the Bush Administration, Net Neutrality was stifled, and downright discouraged. The Justice department filed that new network regulations were not necessary and pretty much let the ISPs (who have a lot of lobbying power) do whatever they wanted. It’s nice to see the Obama Administration (including the FCC) take a stand for Net Neutrality.

There are genuine arguments regarding the increasing use of bandwidth and that ISPs must be able to fund themselves for these increasing demands. But I don’t think entrusting so much power into the ISPs, ultimately a profit-seeking entity, over the internet is a wise idea for the health of the internet.

Again, I don’t pretend to know all the answers, and feel free to make your comments.

Lastly, I’ll let a fellow Yalie by the name of John Hodgman explain it himself on the Daily Show

Push for cell phone DRM in Japan – by “Michael C”

~ bradevanrosen ~ Leave a comment
Cell phone DRM
Cell phone DRM

With Apple’s announcement at the beginning of the year that the iTunes Store, the biggest online music store, was removing its FairPlay DRM from all of its music, it seems like  DRM-restricted music may be coming to an end, in the US at least. However, the situation is very different in  Japan, where the RIAJ (Recording Industry Association of Japan, essentially Japan’s version of the RIAA) is pushing to implement DRM on all cell phones in Japan.

Five years ago, the idea of DRM cell phones would not be a huge deal, as most people had separate MP3 players and did not use their phones for music. However, as cell phones, MP3 players, and PDAs are increasingly meshed into portable all-in-one devices, like the iPhone and Palm Pre, many people are playing music on these devices.

The proposed DRM will work on the server-side, which means that every time a person wishes to play a song on their cell phone, the cell phone will communicate with a server to check if the file was legally purchased. If it is, the server will send the proper response back to the cell phone, allowing the song to be played. If everything goes according to the RIAJ’s plan, the system can be in place as early as 2011.

This DRM system raises a number of questions. There are many online music stores out there, and the DRM would have  to work with music purchased from every single one. This seems somewhat unlikely, as the current online music store  trend is a move away from DRM, not towards it. Would global online music stores like the iTunes Store be willing to  implement some form of DRM into their songs just to appease the RIAJ? Such a measure would probably be quite costly, since DRM files (for the Japanese market) would have to be created, while maintaining the non-DRM files for the rest of the world. Another important note is that not everyone gets their music from an online music store. How would the system handle songs ripped from a purchased audio CD? How would it deal with MP3s released by fledging artists for free? In both of these cases, DRM would probably be absent from the MP3 file. How would the service  verify these tracks? If the DRM were implemented perfectly, it would be a good way to reduce piracy. Yet, it is hard to believe that the DRM implementation will be perfect, and it is inevitable that some users will be unable to play their legitimately purchased songs. Ultimately, then, it seems like this system will cause more frustration and problems than it will attempt to solve, and should be avoided for the benefit of the average user who just  wants to listen to a few songs on the go.

DRM and HDCP – Apple’s contradictory stance – by “Stephen D”

~ bradevanrosen ~ 1 Comment

When Apple rolled introduced their new line of unibody aluminum Macbooks in late 2008, they introduced a new type of display connection: Mini DisplayPort. This new format supported was developed by Apple, and is simply a miniaturized version of DisplayPort, an open standard put forth by the Video Electronics Standards Association. Its main purpose is to either connect a laptop to monitor, or a computer to a television. However, the introduction of this connection as the sole video output in the unibody Macbooks was a significant blow to consumers by limiting the potential choices for what they can watch certain content on. The DisplayPort standard off which this connection is based includes support for High-bandwith Digital Content Protection, or HDCP. What this means is that high-definition (HD) content is protected while traveling between the source and the screen, effectively closing the “analog hole” that pirates sometimes take advantage of. In practice this means that certain iTunes content, when purchased legally through the iTunes store, will not necessarily play on a given TV, monitor or projector. Instead of your desired movie, you will see a dialog box similar to the following:

Apple HDCP warning
Apple HDCP warning

Courtesy of arstechnica.com. http://media.arstechnica.com/journals/apple.media/iTunesHDCP-large540.png

This is a controversial action on Apple’s part, as it requires you to purchase a compatible display in order to watch any movies purchased, since the new Macbooks don’t have a VGA output. Additionally, consumers are not informed that iTunes movies and rentals are laced with DRM. The only clue that consumers have to this, before getting the warning message above, is a footnote that states “Requires HDMI with HDCP or component video.” (http://support.apple.com/kb/SP19) Apple is effectively tricking customers into buying DRM protected media, then dictating how they it.

Bringing HDCP to the new Macbook line is a step backwards for Apple, and forcing consumers to watch their legally purchased movies is not a right Apple should be able to dictate. In the same month that Apple started selling the new unibody Macbooks, they arranged a deal to provide DRM-free music with the four major labels for the iTunes music store. This was a big step forward for Apple, so it’s surprising to see that Apple chose a conflicting view for movies. It is a foolish move for Apple to punish customers who attempt to purchase movies legally. By making the process harder for legitimate customers, Apple is in fact driving more users to piracy. Instead, Apple should use a protected mp4 file, in the same way they use protected AACC files. That way, Apple could protect the content by making sure that the files are linked to an authenticated user, and customers could watch movies however they pleased. However, Apple has ended up treating customers poorly, and the following XKCD seems truer than ever:

Courtesy xkcd.com. http://xkcd.com/488/

A Threat to Freedom, Democracy, and Puppies – by “Francesca S”

~ bradevanrosen ~ 1 Comment
it's easier to find pictures of puppies than freedom or democracy
it’s easier to find pictures of puppies than freedom or democracy

It strikes me as an odd situation where you essentially are in the business of making and distributing skeleton keys, and Mr. Boback will help everybody buy new locks, and then, with your business plan of remaining one step ahead of the law, then you will probably make and distribute burglar tools, and then Mr. Boback or someone else will further improve the locks …

If I were you—and obviously I am not—I would feel more than a shade of guilt at this point for having made the laptop a dangerous weapon against the security of the United States. The 9/11 Commission reported that the central failure was a failure of imagination. Mr. Gorton, you, in particular, seem to lack imagination for how your company and its product can be deliberately misused by evildoers against this country.

This quote is taken from a Congressional hearing in 2007 on national security. The threat in question is not some biological weapon, or high tech explosive. No, the “dangerous weapon against the security of the United States” is peer-to-peer networks. Congressman Jim Cooper’s is addressing Mark Gorton, the CEO of Limewire, and expressing his concern for the national security threats caused by file sharing programs.

Testimony in the hearing details how classified documents had been accidentally shared on P2P networks by an expert on information system security. Other witnesses described the ease with which one can find mistakenly shared tax returns, medical records, or credit card numbers. The conclusion drawn is that those creating the programs are to blame, they are “distributing skeleton keys,” in an attempt to subvert our personal freedoms.

The Congressman argues that it is the responsibility of the software makers to regulate how their software is used. Limewire should anticipate its user’s incompetence, and protect them against themselves. Another congressman brings up the fact that Limewire is the only one of numerous file sharing programs (Imesh, BearShare, and Kazza for example) which did not, following the Grokster decision, implement mandatory copyright material filtering. Limewire instead implmented an opt-in filter, that gave users the ability to choose whether or not to use the feature.

More recently, this past spring, there have been more hearings on the national security risks due to P2P file sharing, as well as considerable lobbying by the RIAA for stricter regulation of these systems. However, it is difficult to come up with a solution that will monitor the system without limiting the ways in which it can be used. “With great power comes great responsibility.” The internet is a tool with unimagined powers, and I believe the American people can deal with a little responsibility.

RIAA Pursuing Old Suits – by “David K”

~ bradevanrosen ~ 1 Comment

An opinion here:  http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/hypocrisy-or-necessity-riaa-continues-filing-lawsuits.ars asks why the RIAA continues to pursue lawsuits even after dropping its sue-everybody strategy last summer.   Their reason appears to be that if they just dropped all the cases, the courts would get mad at them and they’d be vulnerable to countersuing, which has happned before in cases like this one: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/06/exonerated-defendant-sues-riaa-for-malicious-prosecution.ars, where an annoyed defendent got them for malicious prosecution.   But apparently a suti can simply be dismissed with the plaintiff’s permission, which these frightened plaintiffs would probably give, and the explanation the RIAA spokesman has actually given, of justice needing to be served, seems implausible, as the RIAAs policy until this point has been Thucydides’s “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”

I haven’t heard anything in the news about their new strategy, however, which is “voluntary graduated response deals with US ISPS”.  This sounds kind of weak and ineffectual, but that might be because its so vague.  Does this mean the ISPs rather than the users will be asked to answer for what goes through them?  Or the RIAA will somehow be trying to cut access for pathways found to be mosting much pirated music?  Or is it really that ISPs can enforce this only if they’d like to?  It’s not clear, but the fact that we haven’t heard anything in the news recently is significant, since publicizing their efforts has basically been the RIAA’s strategy up to this point.  There’s enough music going around that people who want to pirate will be able to do it, so the way for the RIAA to limit its losses has been to limit the number of people who want to do this.  They can achievet his goal with scare tactics (lawsuits), ethics tactics (anti-piracy propaganda) and knowledge tactics (getting rid of the easiest-to-find and most well-known pirating sites).  But if I haven’t heard much from them, that means others haven’t either, and that means their tactics aren’t working so well.

Then again, I also hadn’t heard that they’d stopped litigating until I read this article.  Why, then does Yale keep running its campaign to stop us from downloading?  I don’t mean they should endorse it, but why are they being so insistent?  There are all these posters and this speech at ST training, and the amount of propaganda about it has actually gone up since last year, even though the danger of getting sued seems to have gone down.  Maybe Yale is just extra paranoid, or extra-ethical, or maybe they know something I don’t, or maybe they just haven’t read this article yet, either.  I’d like to know.

DRM and DMCA – by “Ben L”

~ bradevanrosen ~ 3 Comments

So as we learned, there can be a huge variety of derivative music produced from any given source, like the Amen Break. In fact, you can find 40 variations right here, a testament to remixing. Today, sampling is increasingly restricted, as are attempts around DRM software and copying for use without modification. What seems to be happening, however, is a tug of war on both the legal issues and the technology issues. In both media and software, when is it prohibitively difficult or expensive to get something, people will look for another way. For example, if Girl Talk wants to sell music sampling from 300 songs, that’s going to be a lat of licensing fees and time. The solution is to simply not get the licensing. At the same time, games and all sorts of other software are pirated at some loss to the producer. While the argument “I would never pay for that anyway, and the company hasn’t actually lost anything,” works to some extent, there are certainly a significant number of people who refuse to pay precisely and only because they can get it for free. The balancing act here is to have law and software that allows fair use without letting piracy run amok, that maintains profitability without stifling new work or legitimate use.

This seems to be resulting in a software and legal conflict that, to me at lease, looks like it will continue to turn out well. While youtube keeps up its content identification tool to automatically block, track, or add ads, Maxis has taken the controversial SecuROM software off of Sim 3 , and it looks like they will stay away from hijacking software in the future. Incidentally, I have Spore installed and was displeased to learn about SecuROM from the reading. I wondered how I could not have known about it, until I looked at one of the few non-specialized news stories with an article. Either the LA times reporter, but more likely EA, has mischaracterized the issue. I don’t think it was ever about how many computers Spore could be on, since they likely correctly predicted only a few users might legitimately need more than 3. It was about control of the machine, which nobody wants to give up. Once you lose control of your machine, you lose the ability to innovate, and compete for legitimate uses of products, such as watching DVDs on Linux. But if big companies can neither profitably nor reliably (haiku deCSS anyone?) control their works once they are purchased, nor confidently sue artists such as Girl Talk, then I think we’re doing pretty well. I predict Congress will quickly realize that the pitfalls of passing law that is both unenforceable and against the wishes of a large group of people (prohibition?) apply to the DMCA, and that record companies will learn to put up with remixes. We can’t lose the right to read quickly – there is circular problem. As long as people have machines they control, and there are a lot of them, then it just won’t be practical or profitable to try and control everything.

So SecuROM gets taken off and Linux users still find ways to watch DVDs, but how do companies maintain profit? They seem to be having some success – nobodies stopped making music and software – so I guess they will just have to keep making things people want to buy, and shutting down the biggest of legitimate pirates.