I don’t quite buy the leap that “software companies being exploitative” is at all related to “protecting IP through the use of copyright”. Cory does not link the two successfully in my mind.
Huh? If I have a book, I can lend it to a friend, sell it on eBay, or even put it in a library where thousands of people can read it for free. If I "own" a book on a Kindle, I can do none of those things -- and if our corporate overlords decide they don't want me to read that book anymore, then they can remotely remove it from my device, even if I paid for it [0]. The abuse is that DRM is being weaponized to criminalize fair use and other consumer rights that copyright law otherwise would not give corporations authority over -- and because of DMCA 1201, it is illegal to work around DRM even for fair-use purposes.
In fact, DRM does next to nothing to prevent piracy, as evidenced by the thriving piracy "industry" today. Every DRM system can eventually be bypassed, somehow -- there has to be some way to decrypt the content, otherwise I wouldn't be able to watch it. It's akin to putting up a "no stealing" sign outside my house -- sure, it means that thieves are technically trespassing now -- but they were already breaking the law to begin with and no flimsy little sign is going to stop them. It could be argued that DRM only makes piracy more enticing, because consumers can use pirated content in completely normal, fair-use ways that are blocked by DRM.
As Doctorow explains in the article, DRM was never about protecting copyright, it's about protecting monopolies. DRM means I can only watch a movie with an approved web browser on an approved operating system on an approved computer using an approved cable to connect to an approved monitor, and that I can only repair a tractor at an approved tractor dealership.
[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18am...
Software used to be like this too, back when it was distributed as a physical thing (disks).
DRM was about protecting copyright, your book/kindle example was a perfect illustrator of that. But I agree, it has been weaponised and misused.
They are different.
I wouldn't want to live in a world where I cannot lend my book to whoever the hell I want. Or give it away.
You can't rip it, but you can sell, share, or do whatever you want with the original copy you bought and own. That is true everywhere in the world.
Asia-pac countries do not have this provision at all, unless enforced by US-trade agreements.
I am unaware of anyone prosecuted for ripping though, only several for developing/spreading the DRM circumvention.
Though, the other poster is right, that's a separate thing to what is being discussed.
So what do they sell you? Well, legal legitimacy and possibly convenience.
Doctorow is referring to IP, which he explicitly claims is a mix of unrelated terms under an arbitrary umbrella, only one of which is copyright. IP also groups trademarks & patents, which are unrelated to copyright.
He also explains how each part of the so-called IP laws used to have an escape hatch, something that was useful to society at large even though the "owner" would prefer it didn't exist. And how, given the trend towards concentration of money and consolidation of monopolistic actors, these escape hatches are being eroded.
> Books do the same thing, do you find books abusive as well?
There's copyright for books, sure. But nothing else applies. I can resell books. I can quote them (with some restrictions, such as not quoting the entire book). I can lend them to whomever I choose. I can read them upside down. I can cut them up, I can pick a page and analyze its chemical composition. I can do all sorts of things that, when books turn into digital goods, their publishers make an effort to prevent me from doing -- making it effectively and practically illegal to try to bypass their arbitrary restrictions.
Monopolistic practices exist with or without IP laws, terms of service, etc.
Take a look at some other industries: energy companies have protected fossil fuel exploitation and stifled research and adoption of nuclear and green alternatives.
Finance industry have maintained monopoly and avoided regulation despite there being obvious harm to their practice.
These behaviours are related to capitalism... not intellectual property.
- He intros by talking about copyright, DRM, terms of use, etc
- Then jumps to the fact that Opioid companies try to hook you with addiction, just like Facebook. (So what's that got to do with Copyright, DRM, Terms of use?)
- Then hints at network effects of "How can you leave Facebook if all your friends are there?" (What's that got to do with anything?)
- Then he talks about service lock-in which again has nothing to do with Intellectual Property. You are locked in to all sorts of things in your life as a consumer, that is a capitalistic practice the fact that software companies use IP as the way to pull the lock-in lever is kind of secondary to the point isn't it? Isn't the main point: Why do we accept lock-in at all? (Again he's conflated these, not separates them)
- He talks about Copyright like it's just the US... so what about GDPRs "Right to data portability?", that's the beginning of inter-op. Or Countries copyright exceptions for interop purposes? No mention of those. So not only has he conflated Monopolistic tendencies with IP, he then conflates "Global IP laws" with "US IP law"... which misrepresents the vast majority of the world. As I've mentioned in other comments, in the country I live in: there is no such thing as "Fair Use", you are allowed to copy things for certain protected reasons, and people can't even bring a case against you for those reasons (A subtle but important difference).
- Lets take the kindle example where he says (paraphrase) "Amazon have locked you in, and you are breaking the law if you attempt to undo it"... Well what if I live in a country that allows me the right to reverse engineer for the purposes of inter-op? I can (legally) hack that kindle to pieces... Now they might make that really hard, or even impossible... In a similar way that Oil companies have depressed the EV market and made it WAY harder to own an EV to an ICE... But IP isn't getting in the way here.
If by "books" you mean "copyright on books, as enforced against people rather than corporations[0]", then yes, yes 'they' are.
0: Nitpick: legal action against a corporation for printing something by request from a particular customer is legal action against that customer, the same as if you'd prosecuted 15'000$ that you stole from their car for being drug money.
Book publishers certainly can be. Copyright enables them.