Levi Bard wrote:
>> But it does not say that everyone has lost interest in it. The problem is
>> that everyone is used to everything being FREE and OPEN that now they are
>> thinking communistic thoughts like Richard Stallman and feels every
>> convieveable thing should be free and open.
>
> Or perhaps, *gasp*, software being Free and Open have opened up our
> eyes to the reality that the interpretation of copyright law needs to
> be reformed. That sharing with your neighbor *isn't* stealing. That
> sharing with your neighbor *isn't* the same as boarding a ship,
> killing everyone aboard, and looting it of valuables. That maybe the
> purpose of information and ideas and art are to be shared, not to be
> kept secret.
>
> If sharing information with humanity equates to communism, and using
> laws and courts and fees to keep it secret from those who don't pay
> their pounds of flesh equates to capitalism, then I know on which side
> of the fence I'd rather be.
>
>> I dont care to call DRM, DRM but under it orginal name Content Protection
>> Security. I say Content Proctection Security, and people dont seem to mind
>> as much as saying DRM as the open source community has simply turned DRM
>> into a dirty word.
>> Personally we all know the artist does not get the money, and the cd sales
>> etc goes in the pockets of the RIAA and the record label. But still stealing
>> is stealing does not matter if you steal from Bill Gates House or some hobo
>> on the street. One is not better than they other simply because one can
>> afford it. While I am not happy or saying DRM is wonderful DRM is great.
>> What I am saying DRM is a necessary evil.
>
> It doesn't matter what you call it, because it's always a spin on:
> Forcing Customers To Use Our Content In Only The Way I Want Them To.
I agree. The music/publishing/movie industries are some of the most
corrupt industries in existence.
>
> According to m-w.com:
> Steal: to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as an
> habitual or regular practice
>
> Two things make copyright infringement legally not stealing:
> 1) Digital content is not "property." Property is physical, like a
> loaf of bread or a pair of crotchless panties. There is no such thing
> as "intellectual property."
Oh, I disagree with this. Property being only something physical is an
antiquated definition. Intellectual property is a real thing. The
question is, who owns it and what form does it take? Copyright law has a
valid purpose-- to protect the profits of copyright holders. If I write
a book and get it published, the point of copyright law in that case is
so that I (and unfortunately, the publisher) can partake in the profits
from every copy of that book sold. If people obey the law, then the only
way I can lose money is by people making archival copies for themselves,
something covered by the "Fair Use" clause.
The more people get aggravated by distributor practices, the more they
will either complain loudly to change things, or become part of the
criminal ranks to fight the practices. Lotus gave up their stupid copy
protection scheme after enough complaints. But I'm not at all sure that
Microsoft and the RIAA are going to cause enough people enough grief
that they'll be forced to give up DRM.
> This is a catchphrase made up and
> propagated by content distributors and patent holders to win mindshare
> in those who don't understand how copyrights and patents work, and the
> differences between them. There are copyrights, and there are
> patents. There are different laws that govern and apply to each. I
> am not a lawyer, but Eben Moglen is, and he agrees with me.
>
> 2) "wrongfully" is *very* arguable. The purpose of copyright law is
> to strike a balance between producers (artists, musicians, authors,
> software developers, ...) and consumers. Current interpretation of
> copyright law *only* benefits content distributors - NOT producers OR
> consumers. Because of the prohibitive cost of content reproduction
> and distribution in the early 20th century, content distributors
> gained a chokehold over the providers and consumers in the popular
> music and motion picture industries. (Distributors of printed media
> have/enforce this to a lesser extent, due to: a) They've been around
> longer, and know that this kind of change is basically inevitable b)
> There's not really a way yet to enjoy most digitized printed content
> that measures up to reading a book) Now that the cost of content
> reproduction and distribution in its most convenient form is zero, the
> content distribution chokeholders are doing everything they can: by
> paying for laws and interpretation thereof, by spreading propaganda,
> by shoving DRM/CPS/FCTUOCIOTWIWTT in our faces, and by doing
> ridiculous things like trying to sue 12-year-old girls - to prevent
> producers and consumers from prying their greedy, money-grubbing
> fingers away from our throats. But no matter how they try to spin,
> and threaten, and whine, and use phrases like "piracy" and
> "intellectual property" and "communism" and "anticapitalist," they
> can't *make* fair use wrong.
>
The conduct of distributors doesn't really have anything to do with
copyright law. Copyright law says I can't make a copy beyond "archival"
copies (etc.) for my personal use. Distributors are not operating
outside any law by insisting that you can only use their content in
certain ways or under certain circumstances. We typically agree that
what they're doing is wrong and bad, but we really only have two
choices: 1) pressure them or lawmakers to eliminate their bad practices,
or 2) don't participate in their part of the economy. (Or 3) illegally
copy their stuff anyway.) My opinion is that content providers who
insist on these kinds of measures really only mark themselves as corrupt
by doing so. They're corrupt, so they assume (and act like) everyone
else is corrupt.
-- Paul M. Foster
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:06:37 EDT