[NTLUG:Discuss] MI2 boycott

[Brian Koontz]

Jeremy Blosser wrote:
 
> We'll stick with this, then, and I'll say again that I'm not sure where
> you're getting the idea that people are doing this boycott (or anything
> else related to DeCSS) as a general software freedom thing.

This was based on Ian Alexander's original post, in which he says the
issue surrounding the MPAA's actions against DeCSS "is an important
issue, and central to the public's right for software freedom."

>  And by
> software freedom I think you mean the idea that "information wants to be
> free" and that we should all be free to have the source of software we buy
> and do what we want with, so that the position I see you arguing is that we
> shouldn't be picking something involved in such an ongoing legal battle as
> our "line in the sand" for a free software protest.

That is the way I inferred Ian's use of "software freedom."

> But that's not why I'm doing this, nor is it why most people I've talked to
> are doing this.  I care about open dvd (the kind the law allows under fair
> use) as an end in itself.

Then the intent of this boycott (and here I'm making a huge assumption
that this is the cause in question when you say "that's not why I'm
doing this") should be made clearer:  Is it a boycott to express
displeasure over the MPAA's attempt to stifle software freedom (per the
definition above), or is this a protest against the MPAA's
interpretation of "fair use"?

Or maybe it's a little of both.  In which case, this whole discussion
should serve to highlight the importance of clearly defining the terms
of the boycott, what is being protested, etc.  Boycotting just for the
sake of boycotting does nothing but dilute the message that is
attempting to be delivered.

I think we're on the same page, just different paragraphs. 

  --Brian