|
|
Posted by Loco Jones on 10/06/06 00:27
"Technobarbarian" <Technobarbarian-ztopzpam@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:lL_Ug.1799$La2.549@fed1read08...
> "Loco Jones" <locojonesnet@netscape.net> wrote in message
> > Please re-read what I wrote - at no point did I say "make and sell
> > as many copies as you wish". Don't put words in my mouth.
>
> Yes you did.
> > "People buy things so they can say "I own that (and I have the right
> > to do with it what I wish)" "
> > > Only now are you modifying that statement.
> > > You're trying to take words out of your mouth that you already said.
I still don't see where I said "make and sell as many copies as you wish" -
you are the one making the presumption that activity is something people
wish to do with their purchase. When I said "do as I wish" - it's implied
that most consumers are law-abiding folks, even if you might believe
otherwise.
By way of example:
I can buy a baseball bat and do what I like with it - short of bashing
someone's head in, which is clearly illegal. If I was selling baseball
bats, I wouldn't automatically assume that my product is going to be used
in some murder and mayhem spree. This is where the Copyright Cartel and I
part ways.
You seem to think that certain rights, such as making back-up copies
(not-for-profit) - and yes, they are rights, as allowed by the Home Taping
Act - don't exist. The fact that a right such as this is in danger of being
taken away is where the point of discussion lies.
I never once said that I believed anyone had a right to "make and sell" ANY
copies - as that would be in direct conflict with copyright law *as it was
originally intended* - so I reiterate: don't put words in my mouth. And
RE-read what I wrote here:
> > People do buy things to use them - and personal back-up copies (as
> > many as they like), "time-shifting" (or media/device shifting), and
re-sale
> > of purchased goods ARE uses consumers have had the right to. I'm not
> > talking about "unauthorized copying, distribution, or broadcast"
restrictions -
> > those have always been clearly marked on copyrighted material, and for
the
> > most part, the general populace has accepted that. Even those who
traded
> > mix-tapes of records they bought.
> >
> > The statement "do with it what I like" refers to what has been LEGALLY
> > acceptable in the past, but is now in danger of being outlawed.
Remember,
> > I'm speaking as a consumer, and not a for-profit
bootlegger/counterfeiter.
> >
> > Unless I'm charging people to listen to or watch copyrighted material,
> > that "unauthorized broadcast prohibited" clause shouldn't (and doesn't)
> > come into play. Theoretically, in the future, it *could* apply to a
gathering
> > of family and friends enjoying each other's Christmas CD/DVD presents.
> > While the RI/MPAA might like to equate that scenario with a
disc-stamping
> > plant in some third world country which manufactures and sells
"pirated"
> > copies, some of us can still make the - very real - distinction.
> >
> > DRM is a success at alienating the consumer, and a complete failure at
> > preventing the type of abuse copyright was originally designed for.
> > Perhaps I should have said... "I bought this and have the right to
enjoy
> > it as I see fit"... since the "media companies" seem intent on
> > restricting/controlling my enjoyment with every wacky new anti-piracy
> > scheme they cook up. These cannibals have the wrong people in the pot.
Is any of this sinking in yet?
It's the *abuse* of copyright protection I'm against.
> As has been pointed out here numerous time you only buy a license.
> If you don't like what they're selling don't buy it. You're claiming
"rights"
> that you never had. Your "rights" have stayed the same, the licenses are
> changing.
I think Don M. said it quite well in his reply on this thread to that
ridiculous statement.
Tell me what rights I'm claiming that you say I never had. The right to
time/media/device-shift "content"? The right to re-sell my purchase on the
secondary market? - and by this I mean the second-hand stores, or even
e-bay, where you're selling the original product purchased, not some
counterfeit bootleg... (or some mysterious "license" which apparently can
be re-written on a whim and back-dated to infinity). The right to make a
personal back-up copy?... and don't try to equate that with making copies
for sale.
Now - are these rights that I never had, or rights that I'm in danger of
losing because, according to you "the licenses are changing"? You can't
have it both ways.
> > Lest we forget, the Sony Rootkit debacle - enough said.
>
> Oh yeah, let's not forget Pearly Habor while we're at it,
> it's just as relevent.
It's completely relevant, since it sums up the attitude that customers are
to be considered as criminals, when in fact DRM has done absolutely nothing
to stop the tide of *truly illegal* copying for profit. How many
counterfeiters were even affected by a rootkit? Did it shut down any
stamping plants? Meanwhile, how many home computers were compromised (in an
illegal manner) because a fan wanted to play the new album he bought to
listen to while surfing the 'net?
Now, before you rush into yet another sloppy, dismissive reply - take your
time, read *for comprehension* what I've written, and by all means
carefully construct a valid counter-argument, if you're able. Before you
send it, take a time out to read what Fred von Lohmann has to say here:
http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/fair_use_and_drm.html
(note this debate has been on-going for years now).
Nothing is quite so simple as some people would make it.
Yes, I'm familiar with your usenet posting history.
- Loco -
(Now Playing: Everything You Know Is Wrong - Chumbawamba)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|