The Coming War on General Computation (2011)

It became illegal to share methods for circumventing DRM, which is the precursor to most content control software today.

In a 2011 speech at the Chaos Communication Congress, Cory Doctorow discussed the historical challenges and ongoing "war" surrounding general-purpose computation, particularly in relation to copyright. He traced the evolution of digital rights management (DRM) from early, easily bypassed methods like physical disk defects and dongles to more sophisticated, legally enforced measures. Doctorow highlighted how the software industry's attempts to control copying and usage led to user frustration and ultimately failed to stop determined pirates. He detailed the development of DRM 1.0, driven by the burgeoning "information economy" that sought to monetize information access. This led to the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty, which introduced laws criminalizing the circumvention of DRM and the sharing of such knowledge, creating what Doctorow ironically described as a "mission accomplished" scenario that actually created more problems than it solved.

Doctorow's analysis foreshadows the ongoing tension between users' expectations of control over their own devices and the increasingly restrictive measures implemented by vendors. The "war" he describes is not just about copyright, but about the fundamental nature of computing: whether devices are truly general-purpose tools or are being transformed into specialized appliances with pre-defined limitations. The legal frameworks established in the late 1990s, aimed at controlling information flow, have had lasting implications for software development, user freedom, and the very definition of ownership in the digital age.

The implications extend beyond software; they touch on the right to repair, the ability to modify devices, and the freedom to engage in reverse engineering for security or interoperability. As technology advances, the strategies to control computation evolve, posing continuous challenges for users, developers, and regulators alike. Understanding this historical context is crucial for navigating future debates about technological control and digital rights.