Posted by Alpha on 02/22/07 08:53

"Stuart Miller" <stuart_miller@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Tf9Dh.1086352$5R2.1067762@pd7urf3no...
>
> <mansfield.andrew@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1172113799.870548.163500@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 21, 2:25 pm, "Stuart Miller" <stuart_mil...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>> <mansfield.and...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:1171935208.043210.141040@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> > On Feb 19, 5:20 pm, "Alpha" <n...@none.net> wrote:
>>> >> "Alpha" <n...@none.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> >>news:erd7ja$6te$1@zinnia.noc.ucla.edu...
>>>
>>> >> > <mansfield.and...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> >> >news:1171908148.631190.276770@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>>> >> >> On Feb 19, 11:33 am, Don Del Grande
>>> >> >> <del_grande_n...@earthlink.net>
>>> >> >> wrote:
>>> >> >>> Andrew Mansfield wrote:
>>> >> >>> >> Macrovision Buster for Sale on Ebay: Tonight Only. DVD-DX11.
>>>
>>> >> >>> >> Please see my Ebay listing at the following link if you are
>>> >> >>> >> interested:
>>>
>>> >> >>> >Hi guys:
>>>
>>> >> >>> >I am really sorry you thought my posting was spam. It is very
>>> >> >>> >difficult to get word out about these devices: everything I read
>>> >> >>> >indicates they are legal. They are not regulated under the DMCA
>>> >> >>> >because they are analog signal cleaners. Yet last night Ebay
>>> >> >>> >took
>>> >> >>> >down my auction for copyright infringement.
>>>
>>> >> >>> Your problem might be that eBay could be trying to prevent the
>>> >> >>> sale
>>> >> >>> of
>>> >> >>> something whose use is illegal. (17 USC 1201(a)(1)(A): "No
>>> >> >>> person
>>> >> >>> shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively
>>> >> >>> controls
>>> >> >>> access to a work protected under this title." Using your "signal
>>> >> >>> cleaner" does just that.)
>>>
>>> >> >>> Besides, if you want a strict interpretation of DMCA, selling
>>> >> >>> your
>>> >> >>> device sounds like it is illegal (17 USC 1201(a)(2)(A): "No
>>> >> >>> person
>>> >> >>> shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or
>>> >> >>> otherwise
>>> >> >>> traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component,
>>> >> >>> or
>>> >> >>> part thereof, that is primarily designed or produced for the
>>> >> >>> purpose
>>> >> >>> of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure
>>> >> >>> that
>>> >> >>> effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this
>>> >> >>> title in
>>> >> >>> a work or a portion thereof"; your eBay auction page admits that
>>> >> >>> your
>>> >> >>> Macrovision Buster removes Macrovision - true, it's to "remove
>>> >> >>> color
>>> >> >>> and analog noise caused by Macrovision," but nevertheless it
>>> >> >>> removes
>>> >> >>> Macrovision).
>>>
>>> >> >>> -- Don
>>>
>>> >> >> Sorry Don:
>>>
>>> >> >> Not true. The terms of the DMCA apply *only* to digital
>>> >> >> technologies,
>>> >> >> i.e., encryption. No analog protection scheme, however
>>> >> >> implemented,
>>> >> >> qualifies under the "title" of the DMCA. Look at the definitions
>>> >> >> at
>>> >> >> the top of the title.
>>>
>>> >> >> Thanks to the dozens of people who have emailed in support of this
>>> >> >> device and with advice on selling it (and the many places that
>>> >> >> do).
>>> >> >> It is heartening to see so many good people opposed to the DMCA
>>> >> >> and
>>> >> >> copyright fascism.
>>>
>>> >> >> Andrew
>>>
>>> >> > This is a grey area. A number of rulings have required Macrovision
>>> >> > removal in DVD recorders imported from China to be disabled...etc
>>> >> > etc.
>>> >> > The courts in California disagree with your interpretation.
>>>
>>> >> > There are several important modifications made to the DMCA in
>>> >> > December
>>> >> > by
>>> >> > the Library of Congress, but they do not hold here.
>>>
>>> >> > I believe the Sima CT-2 clarifier had to be pulled from the market
>>> >> > by
>>> >> > Sima...and that is what your device does.
>>>
>>> >> PS
>>>
>>> >> I am absolutely against the absurdly written DMCA, and a member of
>>> >> the
>>> >> EFF,
>>> >> but that does not change reality.
>>>
>>> > Interesting, thanks for the heads up.
>>>
>>> > One of two suppliers is still selling this unit directly into the US
>>> > market new. It just seems absurd to me that ebay appears to be going
>>> > further than the DMCA requires. On further back-and-forth with them,
>>> > they basically admit they are not required by law to block the sale of
>>> > analog Macrovision removers, but their poilcy requires the take-down
>>> > of any ad / listing that "encourages" anyone to violate copyright, by
>>> > whatever means.
>>>
>>> > So . . . if I sell an old-school VCR and fill the ad / listing with
>>> > encouragement for folks to copy other VCR tapes, even non Macrovision,
>>> > I would be in violation of their terms of use. Or to keep up the with
>>> > the absurd analogies, I couldn't sell a book and fill the ad / listing
>>> > with advice to copy a chapter at Kinko's.
>>>
>>> > And in general, courts that extend anti-circumvention protection to
>>> > analog distortion should be tarred and feathered.
>>>
>>> > We will all soon be living in a world of micropayments to the patent
>>> > and copyright holders of the world. Welcome to hell.
>>>
>>> Many literary works require the expenditure of a great deal of time and
>>> effort, and often cash, to get the work created. It is totally fair that
>>> those who created the work be paid according to market forces for that
>>> work.
>>> When there is unregulated copying or such works, the owner of the work
>>> is
>>> denied payment, and the copier, who has invested nothing, stands to make
>>> the
>>> profit instead.
>>>
>>> If you want the content, for work or enjoyment, pay for it. If you want
>>> free
>>> entertainment, use your television.
>>>
>>> There is nothing evil about being a copyright or patent holder - that is
>>> what makes it worthwhile to take a risk on a project.
>>>
>>> I don't give away the rights to the products I have created - the
>>> rolayties
>>> give me the income so I can feed my family and create new products. If
>>> you
>>> judge that the copyright holder is rich enough already, then buy your
>>> entertainment from someone else. When people stop buying the products,
>>> the
>>> price will drop.
>>>
>>> If you want to live in a world of free products, then be prepared to
>>> work
>>> for the government, for free. This is the principle of communism -
>>> everybody
>>> shares, everybody works.
>>>
>>> Stuart
>>
>> Uh, right . . .
>>
>> What an idiot.
>
> Please - you may not agree with the content of my post, but don't insult
> me. You have no basis for judging my intelligence.
>
>>
>> Intellectual property is an artificial construction supposedly for the
>> good of the public, not the rights holder. The concept, at least over
>> 200 years ago, was that those who create literary works or useful
>> inventions should be provided a *limited* and short term exclusive
>> right to reproduce or control the manufacture of the invention. This
>> was considered an exchange between the public and the rights holder.
>> We give you, through our graciousness, some compensation for the
>> supposed creativity exhibited. For patents, there was and is a
>> further trade-off: the exact way to make the invention has to be
>> disclosed, to be made "patent." The public gets to learn how to make
>> it in exchange for one getting the rights to exclusively make it.
>>
>> The keys: short term, limited, and in the public interest.
>>
>> All of this has been skewed by people of small intellect such as this
>> poster. There is no such thing as intellectual property. It is a
>> construct. The construct has now been abused beyond recognition and
>> it is the obligation of concerned citizens to rebel, to appropriate
>> intellectual property to express indignation at the current imbalanced
>> system.
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> Patent rights should have never been extended by the Surpreme Court to
>> software. Software is protected by copyright already. Software and
>> business methods are simply not inventions. This was a gift to
>> software companies.
>>
>> Copyright has been extended in time . . . and extended in time . . .
>> and extended again. Copyright, through the efforts of companies such
>> as Disney seeking to protect the Mickey Mouse character cartel, has
>> been stretched into almost an infinite right. It was supposed to
>> expire and allow works to pass into the public domain rather quickly.
>>
>> The cornerstone of copyright on the public side is fair use. I don't
>> care how much you feed your family from a given work -- I have the
>> absolute right to excerpt it, to sample it, to comment on it and
>> critique it, and to include large sections for such purposes in other
>> works, especially scholarly works.
>>
> Large sections, no, but the rest of this paragraph is valid, for the
> purpose of critique or education, not for the purpose of having a complete
> copy of my work.
>
>
>> BUT NO: Now under the fascist DMCA regime, it is a CRIME to circumvent
>> encryption and other devices employed by copyright holders to lock out
>> users from fair use. Under the supposed threat of full copying, the
>> balance in intellectual property rights was entirely tipped in favor
>> of the copyright conglomerates, also known as studios. One cannot cut
>> and past a section of any DVD. One cannot sample music. One cannot
>> cut and paste TEXT from an encrypted CD-ROM. Suddenly . . . you have
>> to pay for what has been your right for two centuries.
>
> This is completely untrue. A quick look around you will give you the
> proof.
> You know the details - I don't have to spell them out to you
>>
>> And the beat goes on. Now, my Comcast DVR puts "flags" on content so
>> I can watch it only X number of times on Tivo or Comcast DVR or limits
>> what electornic devices I can move it between. The content licenses
>> are becoming so restrictive, I have to purchase a license to own
>> content on DVD, purchase a license to download and watch PPV on
>> Comcast, purchase a license to own the same content on my iPod, and
>> call and get a special license to sample or cut and paste content from
>> any of the above, regardless of the purpose.
>>
>
> Right - if you want the content, pay for it. Nobody is requiring you to
> watch/listen - you make that choice for yourself
>
>
>> To naive people like poster, I can only say, enjoy the hostile world
>> of controlled information you endorse. You have pissed away your
>> rights a drop at a time until nothing is left in the public sphere.
>> The public, which granted these limited rights to copyright holders,
>> has to pay to turn around in the commons now. And it will only get
>> worse if we let copyright holders use the tools of techology to
>> further lock us out.
>
> Lock you out of what? you are not locked out, you are just required to pay
> for what you consume
>
>>
>> I support companies like Slysoft and I will continue to do so until
>> the balance is restored. Use AnyDVD to strip macrovision, remove
>> region encoding, break encryption, and descramble content. It now
>> breaks HDCP, too.
>>
>> Let's restore copyright and patent rights to the public, where they
>> belong. We can then choose what rights to give others to incentivize
>> them to create instead of begging for our constitutional rights for
>> fair use.
>>
>> A
>
> It is hard to respond to all the detail on a line by line basis
> It is clear that you have an entrenched position on this, and nothing I
> can post, either factual or persuasive, is likely to change that.
> You may have your opinion that the masses are entitled to have anything
> they want for free, but my point stands, that if you want value (product,
> entertainment or whatever) for free, then be prepared to work for free.
>
> It is interesting to note that this discussion only involves
> entertainment, which any of us can do without. It does not involve work or
> anything that is a necessity for life.
>
> If you don't like the laws and want change them, get active in politics -
> that is your duty as a citizen of a democratic country. You can't morally
> make a point for more free stuff when you are advocating breaking the law.
>
> This sounds like the mantra of the 'me generation' - I want everything, I
> want it now, I want it for free.
>
> Sorry, no sympathy from me - I paid my own way, you pay your way in life.
>
> Stuart
>
>

This concept of consumption of media is totally ludicrous. We do not and
should not pay for what we consume. What nonsense. I do not consume
magazines, textbooks, art or any other such thing.

Get some logic and careful thought going here. WE DO NOT CONSUME MEDIA.

[Back to original message]