DRM’s Dead Canary: How We Lost the Web, What We Learned, and What to Do Next
I came in agreeing with all the conclusions of this piece, and after reading it still agree with them, but I find myself less trusting of the EFF than I was before reading it. Is there a short descriptive term for &quot;alienating your allies by obfuscating the details in an attempt to make a stronger case than the evidence actually supports&quot;?<p>Let me focus on a specific example that bothered me: &quot;It is obviously not a copyright infringement to go into a store in (say) New Delhi and buy a DVD and bring it home to (say) Topeka. The rightsholder made their movie, sold it to the retailer, and you paid the retailer the asking price. This is the opposite of copyright infringement.&quot;<p>A fine example, but why the rhetorical insistence on &quot;obviously&quot;? The author is an expert in this area, and almost certainly knows more about the details of US copyright law than I do.  But this means he also knows that the legal situation is not nearly as clear cut as the word &quot;obviously&quot; would suggest.<p>First, he knows that the US Supreme Court had a recent 6-3 decision regarding this: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wired.com&#x2F;2013&#x2F;03&#x2F;scotus-first-sale-decision&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wired.com&#x2F;2013&#x2F;03&#x2F;scotus-first-sale-decision&#x2F;</a>.  Yes, it was decided in the direction he and I both favor, but I refuse to accept that the subject of a recent split decision in the Supreme Court can fairly be defined as &quot;obvious&quot;.<p>Secondly, the author also knows that the legality of the importation of copyrighted material depends on who is doing the importing, the number of copies imported, and the purpose of the importing: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.copyright.gov&#x2F;title17&#x2F;92chap6.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.copyright.gov&#x2F;title17&#x2F;92chap6.html</a>.  So while the current law does allow an individual to legally bring back a single copy of a work for personal use, it does not currently allow them to bring back an extra copy to give as a gift.  Why not?  Because this very similar action is still considered to infringe on the copyright holder&#x27;s exclusive right of distribution.<p>It would be fine to say that it &quot;should be obvious&quot; to import copyrighted items, or that &quot;one would hope it would be obvious&quot;, but it&#x27;s lying to claim that it is simply &quot;obvious&quot;.  This strikes me as a clear indication that the author is willing to mislead his readers when he feels it furthers his goals.  This makes me distrust his characterization of all the behind the scenes decisions that I can&#x27;t verify.<p>What&#x27;s the thought process behind this?  Am I misinterpreting?