See my reply to #98 below for an argument as to how Linux can stay legal.
I'll address that there.
My point is that you will always be able to give away LEGAL stuff that belongs to you.
You seemed to be arguing that distributing Linux couldn't be made illegal because it will always be legal to give your things away. I quote: "There's no way to make it illegal for people to give stuff away." DeCSS is fundamentally no different from a version of Linux that does not support the DRM standard the SSSCA will enforce.
You have no rights to control what you think you bought from the American industry, as long as you agree with the concept of Intellectual Property as it is legally defined now. "Fair use" is a pathetic joke, and what's currently left of it will gradually erode until it dissappears completely. Current IP law says that the one who owns the "work of art" has complete control over it, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. It's not written anywhere that the industry should accomodate your so-called "fair use" right.
I guess 200 years of Supreme Court case rulings don't faze you much, do they? Fair use is a well-established legal doctrine. It has been a cornerstone of academic research, parody and satire, and review and criticism. Without fair use, I could claim copyright to my posts and you couldn't quote them without risking a lawsuit from me. Without fair use, academic papers could not quote others without gaining the explicit permission of the current owner of the quoted paper.
You say that we can't do anything about it? That this law is the natural and correct order of things? Maybe you need to read up a little more on US history and on what current rights you enjoy now before giving it all up as futile.
Guess what: it's their RIGHT to screw the customers. As long as you agree to the EULA when you buy the stuff, they can screw you any way they like, it's capitalism at its best.
I guess 200+ years of contract law and consumer anti-fraud protections don't faze you either. Our legal system has rightfully protected us from bad contracts and abusive companies for years. You sound like your advocating price gouging, damaged goods, and a lack of accountability as the highest virtues of our system. Look back at the Industrial Revolution and ask yourself if we really want to return to that level of consumer exploitation today. We do have a choice.
Same goes for artists: they chose to sign the contract, they're screwed. Both you AND the artists get exactly what you deserve for being stupid enough to rely on the industry to bring you together. If you want to change the situation, address the CAUSE of the problem, which is the concept of IP itself, don't address the symptoms and rely on idiotic hacks like this so-called "Fair use" right.
Ah, what a wonderful argument. So the best way to abolish IP, which destroys the ability of authors, performers, and supporting crews to earn revenue, is to roll over and let the middlemen squeeze as much money as possible out of us and to allow IP laws to become futher entrenched in the dogma that every piece of intellect can be owned, controlled, and mined for money. IP will not be abolished in a revolution any time soon. While you advocate trying to get people to overturn the whole system, they are wisely moving pieces slowly in the other direction. You advocate instant economic chaos and turmoil while they slowly get people used to the idea of living life their way. The masses will submit, and we will be dragged with them because we would not stand when the fight could still be won.
Dude, nobody is forcing you into anything. You CHOOSE to deal with the industry, the artist CHOOSES to deal with the industry, you both get what's coming to you. Why the heck would both of you CONTINUE to choose to get screwed while whining about being forced is beyond my comprehension. The technology that can connect you directly with the artist is here, but, for some twisted masochistic reason both of you refuse to make use of it.
Do you know what I'm looking at right now? I'm looking at my copy of Roger Zelanzy's Hugo award winning novel, "Lord of Light." Roger Zelazny died on June 14, 1995. He spent his entire life working himself to the bone to make a living off of writing, even while he was dying of cancer. He did this under the traditional publishing scheme, where he gained a small royalty for every book he published.
In five years, if I lose my copy of "Lord of Light," then I will have to buy a replacement. If the DMCA and the SSSCA go into full effect, will I have the option of buying a paper book anymore? Why should I have the option? From the publisher's point of view it's really advantageous to only publish this old book in a digital format where the cost of distribution is nil and where I am forced to purchase it again and again whenever I change computers. What happens in 2070, when it becomes public doman under (current but ever extending) copyright law? Will it still be around on their servers? Will any paper copies still exist?
What about all the books which haven't been published yet? I am not willing to cut myself off from the flow of modern literature just because someone 3rd party feels they need to squeeze every last dime out of me for it. I feel that I should have the right to enjoy this literature as my ancestors have. Why should my rights be less than theirs?
It's an all or nothing choice. Either deal with them under the new regime of the DMCA & the SSSCA or lose the ability to read one of my favorite books ever again permanently because the author can't decide to give away his livelihood now that he's dead.
Look, I'm as free as it gets, I positively, genuinely am, because I dont't have the slightest desire to consume the products of your "industry". I absolutely cannot respect whores, especially RIAA or MPAA whores. How the fsck am I supposed to like the artistic expression of someone I don't respect? I'm not submitting to anyone, I just don't give a fsck about the whole thing. The DMCA is [...] just not my area of interest...
The thing is that by your inaction, you are forcing the choices of others to be similarly constrained to all or nothing. You seem to think that the enjoyment of modern literature requires liking the middlemen who exploit it and agreeing to their rules. By not standing up for the rights of others, you are allowing them to be forced into the same path you have -- of being an outsider -- or of being a "whore" to the industry.
One day, you may change your mind and wish to buy a CD that you can listen to anywhere, a book that you can read anywhere, or a movie that you can watch anywhere. If that day comes, because you didn't pay attention to the SSSCA now, you may not have that choice. Your rights will be diminished. Why? Congress passed a Law so that someone you've already expressed distaste for can profit at your expense, and you did nothing to stop it.
[ Parent ]