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

[Ralph Janke]

On June 4, 2010 11:24:18 pm Lori Paniak wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 22:56 -0400, Ralph Janke wrote:
> > I am just thinking. The C-32 bill will also make it illegal
> > to unlock physical devices and do what you want with
> > them.
> > 
> > I.e. it would make it illegal to unlock an iPad and run
> > your own OS on it, since it is illegal to circumvent a
> > protection method (i.e. the locking of a device) and
> > the device itself is under copyright, therefore the
> > access to it is now an infringement of the new
> > bill.
> > 
> > Similar could be said to all kinds of other devices.
> 
> While that certainly comes close to my definition of insanity, it does
> not bother me much.  It just means these devices are not on my shopping
> list.  So long as there are open alternatives, I will choose them.  If
> Apple doesn't want to give me privileges (previously) associated with
> ownership, they don't deserve my money.
> 
> What does bother me are the kids wanting to watch the latest Pixar movie
> but not being able to play it back on the Mythbox.  Disney clearly has a
> monopoly on that title; are they not abusing it by dictating on which
> devices I can watch it?  How are their rights diminished by the css
> decoder I use?  Yes, they might make more money with one over the other,
> but they don't have a right to maximize profit.  I already bought (the
> license to watch) the DVD, what else do they want from me?

Right, but this kind of insanity is a way to derail the law on legal grounds.

Look for instance at the whole "Right to Repair" movement, for which the
government now even sides with the consumers. It is against fundamental
principles of competition and therefore bad for Canadian society overall
if cars can only be repaired by dealerships and not by independent
mechanics. 

Similarly, the bundling of software with a physical device is at least in 
the spirit of the legal principle anti-competitive (Yes, having a law
degree, I know it is a little more complex and things like market 
penetration etc are important, however, I want to make it simple).

Copyright is not a matter of property but of limited permitted monopoly,
hence it is actually this point that needs to be argued. What are
the copyright holders give back to society for this monopoly society
gives to the copyright holders?

Where is the monopoly too strong and defeats its original purpose, the 
encouragement of innovation and creation of *useful* art.