[NTLUG:Discuss] MI2 boycott

[Jeremy Blosser]

Gregory A. Edwards [greg at nas-inet.com] wrote:
[cut]
> Whether the intent of DeCSS is to copy, play, rerecord, or just to solve
> an interesting problem does not matter.  An owned piece of property was
> reverse engineered and therefore stolen from its owners.  No matter what
> law MPAA hangs the papers on this is really a case of theft of property.
[cut]

You're right about one thing here: this is about theft of property.

But you're wrong about what the law says, and who is stealing what.

Under the law, if I *purchase* something, I have rights to use it.  These
rights include the right to take it apart and modify it for my personal use
the way I want to.  In the software realm, this includes the right to
reverse-engineer.  In the media realm, it includes the right to make home
copies of disks/books/etc. and make use of them how I see fit (as long as
it's *me* using them).  These rights are well established in US Law, both
written and case law, and are even more directly established in the
countries where DeCSS was created.

What the MPAA is seeking to do is to take from the consumer the rights they
have under the law, to deny me the right to use something I *paid for* and
*own*.  *This* is theft.

If you don't think that legal situation is the way things should be, feel
free to try to get the laws changed so that whoever sells you something
retains indefinite rights to how it is used and abused.  You can start by
supporting and enforcing the DCMA before it (hopefully) gets struck down as
unconstitutional.

But don't expect us to join you.

-- 
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