DIYbanter - View Single Post

On 10 Mar 2004 22:10:32 -0800, (No Time) wrote:

"Mike Kohary" wrote in message ...

In many states, it's not illegal for a minor to smoke, but it's illegal for
them to buy cigarettes. Anyway...

The point is, there is a huge battleground right now, between consumers and
media companies.

You mean criminals and media companies.

The DMCA is ground zero for the battle at the moment, and
while a DVD consumer such as yourself may or may not be particularly
interested in taking a side, I would advise that if you do take a side, it
be against the DMCA.

Of course you would, like a good little criminal. True consumers
couldn't care less about this **** and go along their merry way not
worrying for one second that they have no rights to copy their DVD's
for "protection." The idea is fundamentally preposterous;

which idea?

they don't
expect to be able to "copy" their cars, TV sets, refrigerators, and
prostitutes

but this is 10th-rate sophistry and a daft unusable analogy - none of these things are
copyable hence the object-to-object comparison fails.

in case their "kids mess them up" or whatever other lies
pirates inflict on the ignorant to garner support for their morally
bankrupt positions. Therefore the only ones breaking a sweat over crap
like this are those who steal from the companies, and, like the nice
little cowards they are, instead of recognizing that they're getting
what's coming to them, they're trying to rally the troops. Too bad you
lot are so incredibly transparent.

The DMCA is a draconian law that completely favors
media industry and tramples the consumer's rights to fair use of their
legally purchased product.

Like I said upthread, it sucks that you have no rights to other
people's property, huh?

It would help if you go back to Caxton. It isn't the case that the protection of *all*
intellectual property is a *good thing*.
Your moral case is simplistic bordering on fatuous.

It causes all sorts of hassles and
inconveniences,

Sure, for criminals.

...zzzzz...

from not being able to route your DVD player through your
VCR because of Macrovision,

Thank the pirates for that.

(hopeless)

to preventing you from exercising your legal
right to make a backup copy of any media/data you have legally purchased.

Backup copies being used about 99.9999999% of the time for illegal
purposes forced the DMCA. Again, thank the pirates for that.

The big problem is, while many of these laws and measures stymie the
criminal element, they also stymie those who act in a perfectly legal
manner.

Well they'd have to care first and foremost. But on Bizarro World
where consumers actually care about this kind of inconsequential
nonsense, they can again thank the pirates for forcing the property
owners' hands.

I'll bet that if a cop pulled you over for an illegal random
vehicle search, using the justification that his actions help catch real
criminals and represent only a minor inconvenience to legal folks such as
yourself (the old "If you aren't guilty, you have nothing to be afraid of"
schtick) that you'd be pretty upset about that.

Sure, but the cops aren't coming into your bedroom and going through
your DVD-R's so there's no physical intrusion. Come up with an analogy
that makes sense.

Of course, by copying the product you are circumventing the copy
protection.

Indeed, hence the paradox.

It's not a paradox. You don't get to make copies of DVD's anymore. And
you never should have. Again, thank the pirates.

Which law beats out which law? That is partly
what the courts are trying to decide now. The most recent decision, against
DVD X Copy, is a blow to the consumer, regardless of how you feel about that
particular product.

Again, you misspelled "criminal."

But law relating to copyright is not black and white, has never been fixed but rather has
bent to suit changing circumstances. Also intellectual property rights are very hard to
root in any sense or structure of 'natural' law, i.e. law which is evident in a
common-sense way e.g. murder, abuse, the seven deadly sins (although an academic paper has
recently proclaimed lust to be beneficial) direct theft of physical property (no, this is
not the same as intellectual property but we can develop that argument if you have the
sense to understand it).

Mike