[kwlug-disc] are you going to be a criminal?

[unsolicited]

Lori Paniak wrote, On 06/05/2010 12:03 AM:
> On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 23:36 -0400, unsolicited wrote:
>> Lori Paniak wrote, On 06/04/2010 11:24 PM:
>>> but they don't have a right to maximize profit.
>> Of course they do. You want to see their content? They'll permit you 
>> to, but only under their 'licensing' terms. If you don't like their 
>> terms, you don't get to watch the content.
>>
>> That's their right.
>>
>> Of course they have the right to maximize profit - it's part of the 
>> point of having a business or product.
>>
> 
> They don't have a right to a profit.  They are allowed to try to achieve
> it.

Fair enough. Also irrelevant.

> Monopolies are not illegal either.  Only when they get abusive.
> 
> They could ask for my right arm for the privilege to watching their DVD.
> I might even take them up on that.  That bargain would never be
> enforcible in law.

Obfuscation.

>> That's part of the point of the bill - people breaking their 
>> protection mechanisms, against the minimal rights they're willing to 
>> provide in what they sell.
>>
>>
>> Fair use has nothing to do with this.

Fair use has nothing to do with the intent to maximize profit.

Or, fair use has nothing to do with Lori's point, which is all I said.

> Really?  That's what I'm in it for.  If they want to play DRM games to
> give themselves a (false!) feeling of security, so be it.  Just don't
> let it criminalize my personal DVD watching habits.

We've been over this. Agreed, you can make a backup. Fair use has 
nothing to do with profit / Lori's post.

> To paraphrase a former Canadian leader, the government has no business
> in the MythBoxes of Canadians.

But it does have the business of facilitating the enforcement of 
copyright that is being violated.

Please don't obfuscate. We are all agreed that digital locks would 
diminish the current copyright rights for making a backup, and that 
that's unacceptable. Making the backup is fair use. Nothing to do with 
profit.

>> Part of the points of contention here, and in many other areas, is no 
>> reasonable person would expect certain things, but as soon as they 
>> crack open the shrinkwrap ...
>>
>> Like buying a piece of poor software ... there's no redress. No 
>> holding to account. But buy a toaster that doesn't toast ...
>>
>> Why is the content industry, including software, held to different 
>> standards. How the heck did we get here?
> 
> Yes, how did we get here?

Part of it is the original idea of it being a product. Like a toaster, 
a piece of software performed a function.

Then it turned out one licenses the use of software - despite the fact 
that you held in your hands an 8" floppy diskette. Sorry, then they 
turned the model to that. (On new sales.)

Then it all went to heck as they tried to transform the purchase of a 
product into a licensing mess.

> I don't think the Constitution says anything about the right to back up
> media.

No, that's part of the fair use provisions in copyright law, not the 
constitution. Wrong document.

>  I *bought* the right to watch their DVD - I have the receipts.

So, stick it in your computer and watch it.

Fair use says you can back it up, and use different formats / devices 
to watch it.

The current bill, says you can no longer do that. And that's the problem.

Let's stop beating this aspect, it's known, it's a given. Let's move on.