Because some people couldn’t control themselves, the discussion over at Kim’s blog was curtailed. I had spent an hour or more compiling my response, which never made it up. So, here it is in almost all of it’s entirety. For those who don’t know what I’m talking about, it’s the discussion that was taking place on copyright at the Crochet Me blog:
“The recording industry has made major advances in curbing illegal copying of majorly expensive plug-ins for high-end recording software, namely ProTools. They’ve developed the, “ILOK,” and in one foul swoop, they’ve managed to put an end to the uploading and downloading of illegal plug-ins sharing, which was costing the industry millions. The ILOK is a physical “key,” if you will. You can see it here.
It gets plugged into your computer every time you want to access the software plug-ins you own. It contains all the authorization keys for all the ILOK-related software you’re running on your system. The codes themselves are specifically generated for you and are truly unique.
Any time you want to access a plug-in you own, you have to be verified using ILOK, which means that you need the key (they call it a “dongle.”) It’s like a house key, right? If I go away on vacation and I want you to water my plants and attend to my dog, I can give you the key and you can get it. The difference here is that I’ve made you a copy of my key to get into my house. With ILOK, you can’t do that. You can’t copy the key (they’ve tried and failed), nor can you copy the authorization codes on the key (again, they’ve failed). The implications have been astounding. It’s prohibited people from sharing the authorizations to the software, and not the software itself, since that is the true weak point in the issue. File sharing? You can upload the plug-in, but there’s no point; the downloader wouldn’t be able to accurately verify that he owns the software without the key. Now, can I go to my neighbor’s house and use my ILOK? Yes. But that access will only work if I have the key and he/she is set up to receive the authorization, which is done via human contact through a company that manages and maintains the accounts. If you stop for a moment and think about how this curbs people from sharing software, how it makes it difficult to share authorizations, it’s almost fruitless to share software with the world.
This ILOK has been used in the recording industry for the last 3 – 4 years and hasn’t been cracked, but of course, people are trying. The ILOK is an excellent example of the industry saying, ‘We can’t beat’em, so let’s innovate.’ It would be interesting to see if someone could use that model as a springboard to conquer illegal file sharing for good. Yes, there are aspects about ILOK that don’t directly correspond with illegal file sharing (or patterns in our case), and those issues would need to be addressed. For example, what about file printing? Someone could print out their original pattern and scan it back into the computer and pass it on. Again, working together, someone might use the ILOK technology, but come up with a better idea that’s more appropriate. We won’t know until we throw out a bunch of ideas and put them to the test.
However, until something is done to curb illegal file sharing, I will be out there with my eyes peeled (as always) for people trying to yank a meal out of my mouth.”
With that said, I think the concept of the Orphan Works legislation is one of the bigger pieces of malarchy to come down the pork-belly pike in a while. Why would I be willing to allow the government to define what a “reasonable search” is? And why am I supposed to be willing to say that “reasonable searching” is enough of a standard? For me, it’s not. That scheme gives the searcher too much control over the scenario. Beyond that, who gets to decide if someone has made a reasonable inquiry as to the holder of a copyright? Who is in charge of maintaining that? This law further blurs the line for copyright infringers and provides legal justifications for their actions.
