View Single Post
  #243   Report Post  
gothika
 
Posts: n/a
Default Macrovision hack?

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 16:48:01 -0800, "Mike Kohary"
wrote:

"No Time" wrote in message
. com...
"Mike Kohary" wrote in message

...
On 10 Mar 2004 22:10:32 -0800, (No Time) Gave us:

"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...

Actually it's not legal in any state for a minor to use controlled
substances.
That's regulated on the FEDERAL level and no state shall make a law to
circumvent federal laws.
It's against the law in the entire US for minors to use tobacco
period.
On the subject of fair use of copyrighted materials it's organizations
like ASCAP and the RIAA and their ilk who are the crooks.
Ditto for their evil cousins in the Film and Video industry likewise.
If they had their way we'd pay a fee everytime we played any cd or
tape/dvd we purchased retail.
They're out and out greedy ******* crooks.
And I too am a professional photographer and cinematographer.
I have as much concern over my works and protecting them against
theft.
I believe the copyright laws we have cover that fairly.
We don't need more.
The industry pigs won't be happy until they've invaded our homes with
intrusive electronic monitoring to ensure they can rob us of every
shilling they can squeeze out of us.
Their idea of fair business is to have free run of everyone's pocket
book unto perpetuity.
Hence all their attempts to go around our constitutional freedoms to
thieve as much as they possibly can.
Look at their tactics. Lobbying for instance. Nothing more than bald
face bribery. All the laws that money can buy.
(Please don't start about it having nothing to do with constitutional
freedoms. Any attempt to regulate what you do in the privacy of your
own home is an invasion of privacy.)
And what about their wanting thing both ways to suit their own ends?
They would have us believe that they're not actually selling us a
physical product but that we're entering into an agreement for a
SERVICE. i.e. the right to watch the content of the recorded media in
the privacy of our own homes for our own personal use etc...
But when we want to duplicate that media for the usual reasons.(dvds
and vhs tape are fragile mediums.)
They jump up screaming that we're stealing the content. BULL****!
They are either selling a physical product or they're not.
Copying for home use falls well under fair use and I don't give a fig
what some crooked ass politician or some shyster lawyer for the
industry has to say.
What it really boils down to is that they want us paying over and over
for the same product just so they can enjoy endless riches.
Have you forgotten when they tried to get the lawmakers to outlaw all
audio recording devices? Sounds crazy but they actually tried to get
a law passed to make it a felony to own any type of recording device
which could copy music and thereby infringe on their copyrights of
commercial music.
Then they tried to have a law passed to enable the music industry to
charge business owners a fee if they played publicly broadcasted music
in their shops. And not just a flat fee but a fee based on each and
every song that was played over the airwaves and was received through
the shop owner's radio. HOW LUDICROUS!
High time we exercised our constitutional rights to dismantle the
government. Things have gone much too far.


The point is, there is a huge battleground right now, between

consumers
and
media companies.

You mean criminals and media companies.

Nope, I mean consumers.


Besides you (assuming you're not a pirate which is nearly impossible
to believe at this point), no consumers care.


I resent your insinuations that I'm a criminal. You don't know me, you have
no way of knowing me, so where do you get off presuming to judge me? And
yet you claim to take the high and mighty road when it comes to discussing
issues of ethics.

Think about it for just one minute, putting aside your presupposed notions:
there are plenty of legal reasons to copy media, without breaking a single
law or creating any ethical questions whatsoever. So, given that fact, why
would you assume that everyone copying media is always doing it for a
criminal reason?

Stop being so presumptuous, and try having a civil conversation about this.
Anything else is just intellectually disingenuous; an easy way for you to
defeat an argument you created in the first place, that in no way addresses
my argument. It's a tactic that bereft of any intellectual integrity.

Now, addressing the point: plenty of consumers care. I'm one of them. And
I'll state this flatly for the record: I do not engage in criminal
activities when it comes to copying media, neither passing out copies to my
friends nor selling them for profit. Every copy I make of anything is for
my own personal use only, and is perfectly legal and falls well under my
fair use rights.

Me, I make mixed CDs from selections in my CD collection. Hardly

criminal.

Is that against the DMCA?


If the CD is copy protected, yes, even though the activity itself is well
within my fair use rights.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. If your
kids break the TV set, you don't get to go to the store and get a new
one. The same goes for DVD's; you break them, you're SOL - and you
know that going in.


Right, which is exactly why I'd want to copy some of them.

Further, when you by a regrigerator, it's yours, lock stock and

barrel.No
licensing, no rights - you can do whatever the hell you want with it.

Bad
analogy on your part.


The DVD is yours as well. Doesn't mean you can use it to get ahold of
intellectual property which doesn't belong to you.


There is nothing wrong, either ethically or legally, with copying what is on
legally purchased media for your own personal use.

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?

Straw man. You are intentionally mischaracterizing the issue. That may
make it easier for you to argue your point, but it also causes your

argument
to lose any validity. Try arguing the real issue - it may be more of a
challenge, but at least you won't be losing any integrity arguing

something
I haven't even presented.


You think you have the right to duplicate other people's intellectual
property against their wishes. Seems pretty apt to me.


Their wishes are irrelevant - the law says I can make copies for my own
personal use. Hell, if the law were at the mercy of companies wishes,
imagine all the things consumers wouldn't be allowed to do!

It's not a question of innocence or guilt, terms that would apply to
actual substantive rights. This is simply a question of you wanting to
do something with someone else's property that they don't want you to
do. If you ever produced anything, maybe you'd understand why you're
legless at this point.


I'm a professiona photographer:

http://www.karmaphotography.com

You're out of your league when you go talking about how I simply can't
relate because I don't produce my own intellectual material. Obviously, I
can and do.

but in this case, the media industry would like them thrown out the

window.

They're the owners and it's their prerogative.


That's an extremely dangerous and disturbing attitude to take. I'm sure
many companies would love to employ humans under slave labor conditions also
(and do in some places in the world), but that's their prerogative, right?

Wrong. The law is there to make sure things stay fair and balanced, for
companies *AND* consumers.

Why do you think there are so many court battles
over the DMCA?


Because entitlement-era losers are taking advantage of our easily
abused legal system.


I see it differently - copyright holders are attempting to abuse their
copyrights. Some holders would love to hold copyright in perpetuity, but
that's simply unfair, which any reasonable, uninvested person would agree.

Copyright is intended to allow the rights holder ample opportunity to make
money off of their work. That is perfectly fine, and I fully support that
concept. But it's a concept that is too often abused, and the DMCA is one
of the worst abuses ever. It simply must be defeated.

I'll be happy to continue this conversation if you can do your part
conducting it in a civil manner, without the rhetoric and presumptuous
accusations. Otherwise, have fun having the last word.

Mike