[NTLUG:Discuss] MI2 boycott

[Jeremy Blosser]

I don't have time for a long response to this, since I'm at work, but I
want to make my own reply to this reply to me before things go nutty.

Brian Koontz [pongo at cinnabar.valtech.com] wrote:
> Please, spare me the rhetoric.  You and I both know the purpose of DeCSS
> is to make illegal copies of DVD's, just like the intent of Napster is
> to illegally trade in MP3's.  Don't try to insult the public's
> intelligence (or mine) by telling them something that isn't.

I haven't been following Napster, so I'll stay out of that one, though what
I do know about it tells me you're probably right there, though I also
think the record companies are interested in getting rid of any legitimate
copying as well as illegitimate.  But anyway...

What "I know" are these facts:

- you don't need DeCSS to copy a DVD
- DeCSS doesn't serve the purpose of copying anything anyway, it serves the
  purpose of decrypting it for playback
- you could probably find a way to use DeCSS to copy a DVD, but it'd be
  pretty stupid and inefficient if pirating it is really what you wanted to
  do
- DeCSS was created by Linux users who wanted to be able to view the DVDs
  they'd paid for on a platform other than the one the DVDs were designed
  to be played on
- the above is a textbook example of "fair use", and is very legal

> The public may not all be programmers, but they aren't stupid.  

Yeah, just like we all know that copy machines were invented for the sole
purpose of ripping off publishers, and tapes/tape players for the sole
purpose of ripping off record companies, and VCRs to rip off the MPAA,
and CD-Rs to rip off record companies again, and DVD-Rs to rip off the
MPAA, and...

This happens every time a tech like this comes out.  And it's no different
this time.  We have a technology that is an advance, and we have the
MPAA/RIAA not being able to see that it's going to *help* their industry in
the long run, and being afraid of it and trying to make a legal case to
stop it.

In this case, I don't think the MPAA is so stupid that they actually think
DeCSS is about copying.  I think they know what it really does.  But they
don't want it out there because they want to keep charging different rates
in different countries (hence region encoding) and because they want to be
the ones people have to go through to get stuff published.  And it's
reasonably safe to assume they have deals with certain operating system
vendors hostile to Linux that make it profitable for them to act this way.
But they can't go after it on those grounds, so they pull out a piracy flag
and wave it around, and hire the doublespeaking attorneys.

> With that said, I can support the argument that DeCSS *can* be used to
> make legal copies of stuff you've paid for.  Same for Napster, Gnutella,
> etc.  But yes, Jeremy, there is a fine line that's being toed by those
> who claim the issue behind DeCSS et. al. is simply a "software freedom"
> issue, while completely ignoring the ramifications and history of the
> software in question.  

Sorry, you're the one ignoring the real ramifications and history.  Start
by reading up on www.opendvd.org.

> Supporting software freedom with a foundation of legally-questionable
> apps is a fruitless endeavor.

This isn't about software freedom half as much as it's about freedom of the
user to use what they paid for in a manner consistent with the law.
*We're* the ones trying to uphold the rule of law here, not the MPAA.

-- 
Jeremy Blosser   |   jblosser at firinn.org   |   http://jblosser.firinn.org/
-----------------+-------------------------+------------------------------
the crises posed a question / just beneath the skin
the virtue in my veins replied / that quitters never win