September 15, 2004  ·  Lessig

There’s a great article in the New Scientist about the dangers in IP extremism. As it rightly notes,

THERE are some things in life we take for granted. Among them are the ability to lend each other books, record TV programmes, back up expensive computer programs, and sell on our old CDs when we’ve got tired of them. … That could change. New technologies are giving copyright owners the power to control the time and place we can view or play digital versions of music, films and text so tightly that we run the risk of losing these rights altogether.

But to read the article at the New Scientist website, you’ll need to subscribe. Oh well. One step at a time.

  • Jardinero1

    Uh, you can go to the library to read it. You can even make a copy for yourself to take home. It’s really quite amazing.

  • David Lewis

    Good lord — are you objecting to New Scientist charging for a subscription? Is that the “almost”? Is that IP extremism?

    I hope I need not elaborate why charging money for publications is not only a reasonable idea, it’s essential to creating a supply of IP in the first place.

    So if that’s not the “almost”, then what is? Or were just being a little vivid?

  • http://members.cox.net/salamon Andrew

    Essential? No, I don’t think so. Otherwise I’d have to rush to my web pages and quickly remove the free software I wrote, since it can’t have been created without the essential incentive of money.

  • David Lewis

    I’m glad that money is not essential to you to spend your time writing software (or articles, books, plays, music, visual art, etc). Unfortunately, that does not apply to most of us.

    Seriously, I said “a supply of IP” by which I clearly meant the general, overall phenomenon. Do you seriously doubt that the flow of useful and entertaining IP would be dramatically reduced if there were no way to make money from publishing it?

    Even Stallman allows for making money at software, just not a lot of it, and not by treating it as property. Unfortunately, however, the equivalent alternate money-making channels (support, customization, etc.) do not generally apply to other kinds of creative products.

  • http://www.ambiguous.org quinn norton

    lordy, this isn’t about whether subscription models are ok or not. whatever your politics, you have to admit putting your anti-drm editorial behind drm looks kind of silly.

  • http://www.oblomovka.com/ Danny O Brien

    I don’t think that Larry’s arguing that they can’t charge for a subscription; I think he’s arguing that they might do better, for purposes of dissemination and probably financially, to not hide their content behind a registration wall.

    You can pay for a subscription to many newspapers and magazines while still reading the majority of their content online. Paid subscriptions for paper products and freely available digital versions are neither philosophically or practically incompatible.

    I wrote that piece (to be fair, a New Scientist editor and I co-wrote it: it’s fairly different from my original draft). I don’t have the contract to hand, so I’m not sure if I retain copyright. I’ll ask if it’s possible to place it somewhere where it can be more widely read.

    I’d certainly be happy for that to happen.

  • three blind mice

    I don�t think that Larry�s arguing that they can�t charge for a subscription; I think he�s arguing that they might do better, for purposes of dissemination and probably financially, to not hide their content behind a registration wall.

    You can pay for a subscription to many newspapers and magazines while still reading the majority of their content online. Paid subscriptions for paper products and freely available digital versions are neither philosophically or practically incompatible.

    that may well be true mr. o’brien. throughtout europe there is a free-as-in-no-cost-to-the-reader newspaper called “metro” that has been wildly successful. in most markets where metro has been introduced, the morning non-free newspapers have suffered substantially.

    the point is whether or not the New Scientist should have the choice AND ABILITY to offer their content free (as in no cost to the user), or non-free as they apparently so choose to do.

    your hyperbole about IP extremism is itself extreme. “back up expensive computer programs…” well gee, we’d like to make a back up of our car, but when we wreck it we have to buy a new one. seriously, why should it be any different with computer software?

    no one ever complained that the record store would not replace LPs when they got scratched…. but now you seem to think this is a right?

    you can still make a copy of a DRM protected CD using an analog tape deck and exercise the exact same fair use rights you have always had with vinly LPs. but now you seem to claim as “fair use” the right to press your own vinyl LPs just because you paid for one.

    instead of a right to the expression, for some reason you and others like you feel you have a right to the content.

    this position seems to reflect an unprecendented expansion of fair use.

    it seems to us, that DRM is a reasonable, rational response to restore the balance of fair use and that your position is the radical, extremist one.

  • Spoonlike

    your hyperbole about IP extremism is itself extreme. �back up expensive computer programs�� well gee, we�d like to make a back up of our car, but when we wreck it we have to buy a new one. seriously, why should it be any different with computer software?

    Because the process for backing up software is, by several orders of magnitude, easier than creating a backup of a car. You can, in fact, create a backup of a car. You can purchase each and every component in your car, and store them in a warehouse for the time when you’d need to replace them. The fact that this is far more expensive than buying a CD-R drive, writeable CD and the electricity to perform the operation is beside the point. One can, and should, be able to do either without having to first consult with Big Brother at the DRM server, or the Big Three (when it comes to automakers).

    no one ever complained that the record store would not replace LPs when they got scratched.� but now you seem to think this is a right?

    Again – false analogy. No is expecting the software company to replace anything for free. Suppose I have the means to create a copy of an LP – my own vinyl press. DRM is the equivalent to not being able to load the masters onto the press and make my own copies, or to create my own master from my vinyl copy (without consent).

    you can still make a copy of a DRM protected CD using an analog tape deck and exercise the exact same fair use rights you have always had with vinly LPs. but now you seem to claim as �fair use� the right to press your own vinyl LPs just because you paid for one.

    And again – bad analogy. CD to analog copying creates a drop in fidelity which degrades the original with appreciability. Digital copying retains the fidelity, and since that means is available to me, it shouldn’t be restricted because someone assumes everyone might be a thief.

    instead of a right to the expression, for some reason you and others like you feel you have a right to the content.

    To my copy of the content, yes.

  • three blind mice

    you can still make a copy of a DRM protected CD using an analog tape deck and exercise the exact same fair use rights you have always had with vinly LPs. but now you seem to claim as �fair use� the right to press your own vinyl LPs just because you paid for one.

    And again – bad analogy. CD to analog copying creates a drop in fidelity which degrades the original with appreciability. Digital copying retains the fidelity, and since that means is available to me, it shouldn�t be restricted because someone assumes everyone might be a thief.

    spoonlike, you were so close, but you fell short.

    historically fair use means a LESS THAN PERFECT COPY that does not create a competitor for the original. the vinyl LP industry was not decimated by the existence of cassette tapes, because cassette tapes did not reproduce the fidelty of vinyl. even our nakamichi reel to reel did not quite reproduce the fidelity of the vinyl original of dark side of the moon.

    the existence of the copy did not thus diminish, nor replace, the value of owning the LP. this is fair use.

    with vinyl you could not remove the content, you could only COPY it and due to limitations in the technology, you could never make an exact copy – AND you had to do it at real time.

    it is your demand for an EXACT copy – instead of being satisfied with a normal fair use copy – that exposes the copyright owner to substantial risks.

    in effect, you bought the vinyl album for 10 dollars and you are demanding free access to the master discs for your press.

    this is not fair use, it is fair use turned on its head.

    it is a shame that everyone is not honest like you, but this is why we must endure inconveniences like carrying keys for locks and remembering PIN codes.

  • http://www.xanga.com/publicdomain WJM

    your hyperbole about IP extremism is itself extreme. �back up expensive computer programs�� well gee, we�d like to make a back up of our car, but when we wreck it we have to buy a new one. seriously, why should it be any different with computer software?

    The incremental cost to the car company of building a back-up car (you can’t do it yourself) is very different from the incremental cost to the software company of “letting” you, through a legitimate exemption in the copyright law, build a back-up program.

    There is, in fact, no comparison AT ALL between the two cases.

  • http://www.xanga.com/publicdomain WJM

    historically fair use means a LESS THAN PERFECT COPY that does not create a competitor for the original.

    Authority for both points in this statement?

  • three blind mice

    your hyperbole about IP extremism is itself extreme. �back up expensive computer programs�� well gee, we�d like to make a back up of our car, but when we wreck it we have to buy a new one. seriously, why should it be any different with computer software?

    The incremental cost to the car company of building a back-up car (you can�t do it yourself) is very different from the incremental cost to the software company of �letting� you, through a legitimate exemption in the copyright law, build a back-up program.

    There is, in fact, no comparison AT ALL between the two cases.

    c’mon WJM the cost of creating the “back up” has nothing to do with this.

    first, let’s pretend that we all agree that the owner of the copyright has the right to decide how much to sell copies for. (we know this is contrary to marxist pricing theory, but let’s pretend that we still live in a free society.)

    what then is important is how the owner of the car/program receives compensation. ford sells cars and parts, the RIAA sells plastic discs.

    the price of a car does not include a second car (outside warranty, lemon laws, insurance, etc). if we total our car we buy another and ford gets paid their asking price, regardless of how much it costs them to make another vehicle.

    similarly the price of an LP/CD does not include a second LP/CD – or you would get one in the box when you bought it.

    the thing is you are not buying the rights to the music – you are buying an LP with the music grooved into it, or a CD with the music burned on it. you can share the LP/CD, lend it to your friends, but just because technology makes it possible for you to lift the content and press a new LP, or burn a new CD doesn’t make it right or proper.

    where production price comes into the picture is when a dishonest person decides to distribute copies at zero cost and zero price. even marx realized that for profit businesses cannot compete against free.

    without DRM you expose content owners to unprecendented vulnerability to dishonest people and it seems that the marginal benefits you receive from being able to make a personal copy do not compare in any way to the enormous risks that this exposes the content owner to.

    sorry. it’s a pain in the ass for us too, but so are PIN codes and car keys and everything else that we use to protect property from dishonet people.

    c’est l� vi�.

  • three blind mice

    historically fair use means a LESS THAN PERFECT COPY that does not create a competitor for the original.

    Authority for both points in this statement?

    cassette tapes, the betamax, the VCR, the XEROX copying machine, analog tape recorders, etc. all make inexact copies. any decision based on one of these technologies assumes inexact copying (de facto if not de jure).

    or is this an exaggeration? it seems obvious, but we concede that we are not legal experts on fair use.

  • http://www.xanga.com/publicdomain WJM

    what then is important is how the owner of the car/program receives compensation. ford sells cars and parts, the RIAA sells plastic discs.

    Then let them sell plastic discs, and abolish the other thing they think they sell, atomic portions of copyright rights.

    Abolish copyright. Sell plastic.

    similarly the price of an LP/CD does not include a second LP/CD – or you would get one in the box when you bought it.

    It DOES include secondary copies… they are just not included in the shrink-wrap. You have the legal right to make those copies within the bounds of fair use and within the metes and bounds of copyright as a whole, at least in those countries, outside the U.S., where copyright still expires.

    the thing is you are not buying the rights to the music –

    Then Sony should stop pretending they have those rights, that they buy, sell, and license them. If they aren’t selling rights in addition to plastic, surely they can’t mind if we just abolish those rights altogether. Why get worked up about abolishing something that they’re not using?

    to your friends, but just because technology makes it possible for you to lift the content and press a new LP, or burn a new CD doesn�t make it right or proper.

    yes, it does, if you are doing so within the very limits set by the copyright laws of wherever your activity takes place.

    where production price comes into the picture is when a dishonest person decides to distribute copies at zero cost and zero price. even marx realized that for profit businesses cannot compete against free.

    Then Big Copyright has no business being upset with re-uses of works where cost > 0.

    without DRM you expose content owners to unprecendented vulnerability to dishonest people

    That’s a load of crap. Copyright laws still contain powerful tools for copyright owners to exercise their rights and suppress illegal activities. But it’s not an unlimited control. The owners hate that. They want unlimited control, for all places and times, forever. That’s what DRM is about. Abolishing the balance.

    and it seems that the marginal benefits you receive from being able to make a personal copy do not compare in any way to the enormous risks that this exposes the content owner to.

    Do you have any proof that this is the case?

    sorry. it�s a pain in the ass for us too, but so are PIN codes and car keys and everything else that we use to protect property from dishonet people.

    If I transfer music from the CD I have bought to my computer or MP3 player, for myself, with no one else having access to it for as long as copyright in that work subsists, what has been stolen from the copyright owner? How has he lost?

    Do you work for RIAA or something? If so, you’re not very good at it…

  • Spoonlike

    spoonlike, you were so close, but you fell short.

    historically fair use means a LESS THAN PERFECT COPY that does not create a competitor for the original. the vinyl LP industry was not decimated by the existence of cassette tapes, because cassette tapes did not reproduce the fidelty of vinyl. even our nakamichi reel to reel did not quite reproduce the fidelity of the vinyl original of dark side of the moon.

    Historically, yes. But history is history. The only reason that the RIAA and the other IP-only business models are up in arms is because there’s the capacity for true fidelity in the creation of copies. But that’s not the point. Nowhere in copyright law is someone required to make an inferior copy. In fact, with true IP such as text – perfect copies of sections are easily done. Arguing that all fair use copies must inherently be inferior means that typos should be mandated in any quoted section of text.

    the existence of the copy did not thus diminish, nor replace, the value of owning the LP. this is fair use.

    No, fair use is the ability to utilie a work in limited circumstance without the necessity of obtaining permission from the original owner, for the purposes of commentary, citation or review. Quality has never had anything to do with fair use. Well, until now.

    with vinyl you could not remove the content, you could only COPY it and due to limitations in the technology, you could never make an exact copy – AND you had to do it at real time.

    Luckily, we’re in the 21st Century and aren’t limited by the technology of the 1920s.

    it is your demand for an EXACT copy – instead of being satisfied with a normal fair use copy – that exposes the copyright owner to substantial risks.

    It’s only a risk to the original owner if they assume that I’m going to do something illegal with my perfect copy. Thoughtcrime isn’t a good business model.

    in effect, you bought the vinyl album for 10 dollars and you are demanding free access to the master discs for your press.

    I’m not demanding anything from anyone, since I am perfectly capable of creating the perfect copy myself. I can create a perfect copy of any written text on the planet as well, given enough time and a keyboard. I can pay someone else to create a perfect copy of a famous painting. The only issue is the *ease* with which I can make a copy of digital information. I don’t want anything more from the IP holder – especially not their ‘permission’.

    it is a shame that everyone is not honest like you, but this is why we must endure inconveniences like carrying keys for locks and remembering PIN codes.

    Again – a false analogy. If I buy a lock, I don’t have to call into Masterlock for the privilege of getting into my house. When the bank gives me my PIN codes, they don’t require that I show good cause as to why I want access to my own money. When I buy IP – that copy is MINE, to do with as I please. DRM assumes that the copy is always THEIRS. That’s turning the idea of ownership on its head.

  • Joseph Pietro Riolo

    To Three Blind Mice,

    Your understanding about the fair use is all wrong.
    I think that your zealotry for strongest copyright
    has blinded you to the correct meaning of fair use.

    Go and read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use.

    Fair use is about the ability to exercise the
    freedom of speech and press on the copyrighted works.
    Without fair use, any copy, no matter how small it
    is, from copyrighted work is a technical infringement.
    In other words, authors and artists can use copyright
    law to prevent anyone from exercising the freedoms of
    speech and press.

    But, the courts, fortunately, recognized that this
    went too far and therefore created the doctrine of
    fair use that was later codified in the copyright law.
    Fair use allows people to criticize copyrighted works,
    comment on copyrighted works, report news, teach students
    about copyrighted works, study copyrighted works and
    research on copyrighted works.

    It really does not matter if the partial or whole copy
    is inferior to or has lower quality than the original
    copyrighted work. That is not the point. The goal of
    fair use is to allow people to do the intellectual
    activities as I described in the previous paragraph.

    However, it is obvious that from your past comments,
    you have no love for the freedoms of speech and
    press just because you want stronger and stronger
    and stronger copyright. That’s shame.

    Joseph Pietro Riolo
    <riolo@voicenet.com>

    Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions
    in this comment in the public domain.

  • Joseph Pietro Riolo

    To WJM,

    It really does not matter that no one else has
    access to the music that you transfer from your
    CD to your computer or MP3. Copyright is about
    copy. Period. Unless the transfer is permitted
    by fair use, Chapter 10 in the U.S. copyright
    law, implied license, or copyright holder; the
    transfer is a copyright infringement.

    Lack of access to a copyrighted work by anyone
    other than yourself is not a valid excuse for
    making a copy.

    Joseph Pietro Riolo
    <riolo@voicenet.com>

    Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions
    in this comment in the public domain.

  • three blind mice

    joseph pietro riolo, WJM, spoonlike….

    do you think that the public should have the “right” to create exact copies of US treasury notes?

    it has happened that we have damaged a dollar so badly that it could not be used or exchanged. shouldn’t we have a “right” to make a back-up?

    isn’t this just fair use? we earned the dollar, we own it, we should have the “right” to do anything we want with it without BIG BROTHER telling us what to do.

    if we have the scanner, the printer, and the paper it doesn’t cost the US treasury anything to make another.

    the technology exists. doesn’t it stifle innovation to deny this technology to the public?

    isn’t the right to counterfeit guaranteed by the right to free speech?

    so how about it? aren’t laws against counterfeiting just outdated concepts forced on an honest public by copyright extremeists at the US treasury?

    what do you think would happen to the value of US currency if anyone could make their own identical copies – indistinguishable from the original?

    now tell us, how is digital music any different?

  • http://www.xanga.com/publicdomain WJM

    It really does not matter that no one else has
    access to the music that you transfer from your
    CD to your computer or MP3.

    I’m disappointed to see you, of all people, swallowing Big Copyright hook line and sinker.

    Copying for yourself, or for many other people, is one of a raft of factors which can be considered in determining whether a use is fair or not.

  • http://www.xanga.com/publicdomain WJM

    “do you think that the public should have the �right� to create exact copies of US treasury notes?”

    Cute, trying to equate counterfeiting with copyright infringement. And not really meritorious of a response. It is in the public interest to prohibit counterfeiting (“exact copies”) of currency; that same type of interest is not applicable in copyright law, although there may be related TM or tort (passing-off) issues, depending on the nature of the work. And those interests are private, not public, except to the extent that copyright in broad strokes makes for good public policy.

    You’re obfuscating again.

    Less than exact copying is not counterfeiting. There is no prohbition, at least in the country that I’m in, against less-than-exact copying of currency. That’s how coin and currency dealers can publish catalogues, or newspapers can run illustrated stories about the latest currency security features. That comes close to “fair use”, but that’s not really applicable when you’re talking about a criminal provision (counterfeiting of currency) rather than the civil rights created, for a limited time and purpose, by copyright law.

    Go away, Rolo.

  • Spoonlike

    do you think that the public should have the �right� to create exact copies of US treasury notes?

    it has happened that we have damaged a dollar so badly that it could not be used or exchanged. shouldn�t we have a �right� to make a back-up?

    isn�t this just fair use? we earned the dollar, we own it, we should have the �right� to do anything we want with it without BIG BROTHER telling us what to do.

    And the false analogies just keep on rolling in from the Blind Mice Trio. You never own currency … ever. All paper currency is the property of the US Government. You have *possession* of it, to be tendered in exchange for debts(public or private – it says it right on the note). But currency (at least current, in-circulation currency) cannot be owned in the same sense as digital music.

    So no – even ‘social goods’ aside – it’s a bad analogy, and it doesn’t hold up under even a modicum of real scrutiny.

  • three blind mice

    Cute, trying to equate counterfeiting with copyright infringement. And not really meritorious of a response.

    WJM you really should consider switching back to decaf.

    the system of paper money works because there is an artificial scarcity of paper notes.

    the supply of notes, of course, has a great effect on the value of any individual note. uncontrolled printing of notes leads to inflation – and a devalued dollar. (see peso.)

    this is why counterfeiting – which is fundamentally a prohibition against copying – is illegal and enforced by trigger happy, heavily armed US treasury agents with bad attitudes. without it the system of paper money doesn’t work.

    the prohibition is however rather limited to making copies that could reasonably be confused with the originals: printing a three dollar bill with your photo on it would not probably invite a late night visit from paramilitary forces of the US government.

    similarly, the uncontrolled reproduction of digital music produces the same inflationary/devaluing effect on digital music as the uncontrolled printing of notes has on currency values.

    and also similarly, if the copy can not reasonably be a replacement for the original (such as a low fidelity tape copy of an LP), you are probably causing no harm.

    you cannot focus simply on the cost of production – as spoonlike also does – and ignore the inflationary effect.

    this is why you fail to see that zero cost production is more of a reason FOR effective DRM than an argument against it.

  • three blind mice

    And the false analogies just keep on rolling in from the Blind Mice Trio. You never own currency � ever. All paper currency is the property of the US Government. You have *possession* of it, to be tendered in exchange for debts(public or private – it says it right on the note). But currency (at least current, in-circulation currency) cannot be owned in the same sense as digital music.

    spoonlike, again you were on the verge of coming over, but your anti-copyright bias interrupted your thought process before the calcuation was done.

    all US treasury notes are owned by the government and all copies of a copyrighted song are owned by the artist. this is what copyright means.

    the artist may sell you one copy, but buying a CD doesn’t mean you “own the music” – you own one copy sold to you by the artist.

    get it? you don’t own “the music” – ever. all you own is one copy.

    that’s all you pay for and that’s all you get. rights to “the music” costs a bit more than the 20 evros you pay for a CD.

  • Joseph Pietro Riolo

    To Three Blind Mice,

    You have taken analogy to unbelievably absurd level.
    Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that I go along
    with your game.

    Because the U.S. treasury notes are not copyrightable,
    the copyright law does not apply at all. So, you
    don’t need a right to create exact copies of U.S.
    treasury notes. You have the freedom to make the
    exact copies of U.S. treasury notes. However,
    because of the great potential use for fraud, the
    freedom is slightly restricted. See:

    http://www.treas.gov/usss/money_illustrations.shtml

    for few restrictions. These restrictions are
    covered by a different law, not the copyright law.

    This shows once again that you have improper understanding
    of the copyright law.

    If your damaged dollar bill still has two serial
    numbers intact, just go to a U.S. bank and have it
    replaced with a new dollar bill. If it does not have
    both serial numbers intact, I believe that you can
    send the damaged dollar bill to U.S. Treasury and
    request for a replacement. I have not researched
    on that part. You can’t do that with a copyrighted
    work. Again, another difference that you are blind
    to.

    About making a back-up of dollar, you can make an
    enlarged copy of dollar as your back-up but no bank
    will accept the copy as the evidence that you truly
    are the owner of the dollar bill. If you lose dollar
    bill, that’s too bad. It is no different from any
    other thing.

    You can do anything to the U.S. treasury notes subject
    to few restrictions as I stated above. You can even
    put your faces on the dollar bill. (If you do that,
    you lose the value of the dollar bill because it is
    no longer a legal tender.) You can even make a
    derivative work based on the dollar bill.

    You asked how this is any different from digital
    music. Again, you are still blind to the difference
    between tangible and intangible things. With the
    U.S. treasury notes, all the intangible things in
    the notes are in the public domain and the only
    remaining thing that is ownable is the paper itself,
    just like books that contain the public domain works.
    Digital music is intangible thing. If it is copyrighted,
    the copyright law applies.

    To Spoonlike,

    Unless you show me a law that shows otherwise, we
    the public are the owners of the paper currency
    (the tangible thing, not intangible thing). It is
    never the property of the U.S. Government.

    Joseph Pietro Riolo
    <riolo@voicenet.com>

    Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions
    in this comment in the public domain.

  • http://minimaldesign.net/ m d

    I think the point was the irony of this particular situation, nothing more.

    To all those of you who think the only possible motivation for creating something is money, I have bad news for you: you’re not creative – just jaded and greedy.

  • Rob Myers

    The sad old crashed car analogy has to turn licensing into ownership in order to work. You don’t own a recording or a piece of software, you license it (read the small print). It’s not like crashing your own car, a physical item that you own, and then demanding a replacement. It’s more like hiring a car, it failing, and the hire company refusing to replace it. Or worse, it’s like not being allowed to refill your car’s tank with petrol. Want to drive any further once you’ve “broken” your petrol tank? Well, make sure you buy a new car rather than engaging in “car piracy” by visiting a node on a petrol-sharing network.

    As for backing up money, I do this regularly. Indeed I use my backup more often than the notes that I use to make the backup. Sometimes I don’t even bother with banknotes, I just get the money over the network from someone else. I think people even make a profit from distributing other people’s money in this way.
    If I remember correctly, these networks are called “banks”.
    I’ve long enjoyed the convenience these “banks” provide, but I now realise that they will destroy our society’s supply of money. Clearly they must be outlawed immediately and their operators imprisoned to serve as a warning to others who would threaten our economic wellbeing.

  • Joseph Pietro Riolo

    (Note: I posted the following comment on September 22nd
    around 5:15pm (Pacific Time) but it disappeared. So was
    Three Blind Mice’s comment in response to my previous
    comment. Another person’s comment about some other
    countries allowing private copy also disappeared.)

    To Three Blind Mice,

    The scarcity of paper money has nothing to do with the
    rationale for anti-counterfeiting law. The job of United
    States Secret Service is not to keep paper money scarce
    but to make sure that there is no illegal paper money
    in the public circulation. The primary reason for having
    anti-counterfeiting law is to maintain the legitimacy in
    paper money so that people can have trust in the
    business transactions.

    The decision to produce too much paper money or too little
    paper money rests with the Federal Reserve System. Moreover,
    there are different kinds of money out in the U.S. such as
    barter, local money, alternative currency, and so on. In
    other words, the Federal Reserve System does not have the
    monopoly on the whole monetary system in the U.S.

    This is not the first time that you have abused analogy
    to advance your own positions. The closer the apple and orange
    are examined, the more differences there are. It is
    an insult to logic to apply every characteristic of apple
    to orange on the basis of only few similarities between
    apple and orange.

    In spite of your unusually generous opinion, it is quite
    incorrect to say that making a tape copy of CD is fair use.
    Fair use is never intended to make illegal imperfect or
    perfect copies. DRM is fine as long as users are able to exercise
    fair use. But given your position for stronger and stronger
    and stronger copyright, it seems that you are very eager to
    lessen or trample fair use in the name of DRM. That’s shame.

    Joseph Pietro Riolo

    Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions
    in this comment in the public domain.