Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 17th Mar 2011 13:19 UTC
Legal And so Sony's crusade against Playstation 3 hacker George "Geohot" Hotz continues. After Sony getting all of Geohot's computers and access to server logs and personal details from many of his websites and social media accounts, Sony has now been given access to Geohot's PayPal account, and all information within it - including of the people he has had financial dealings with.
Thread beginning with comment 466860
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: In Sony's corner
by Alfman on Sat 19th Mar 2011 05:46 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: In Sony's corner"
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

WereCatf,

"It is indeed flawed and could be in need of revisioning in many cases, but it's not entirely useless either."

I'm not sure what you mean here?

Does the DRM technology needs to be revisioned? Or the notion of control through DRM need to be revisioned?

There will never be any permanent technological fix, which implies a continued (and resource draining) escalation of DRM technologies.

If you meant that the application of DRM needs revision, then I'd agree.

"I personally do understand the need and wish for DRM and I don't object to it, I only object to the way how companies go overboard with it nowadays."

Perhaps, but DRM hurts innocent users, and almost never affects the pirated copies going around P2P networks.

Also, making a copy does not equate to being a "pirate" (at least not in all countries). Therefore we should not categorically state that anyone wishing to make a copy is a pirate.

In the US we do have the right to copy copyrighted media to alternate devices without permission from the copyright holder. For instance, we're within our rights to copy a movie to an SD card in a format playable on a portable device. The copyright holder has no legal basis for objections.

The DMCA introduced many complications: we still have the right to have a copy, but we are striped of the right to the means of circumventing copy protections, which is somewhat contradictory. It was certainly sloppy lawmaking.

Never the less, there are exceptions under the DMCA, and I believe that most DRM today falls under one of the exceptions such that the DRM can not be covered under the DMCA. Of course, the law means nothing if the judge is already bought, as in this case.

Reply Parent Score: 2