[NTLUG:Discuss] MI2 boycott

[Jeremy Blosser]

Gregory A. Edwards [greg at nas-inet.com] wrote:
> First off I'm not trying to get into any kind of flame war here.  I'm
> also not taking any kind of side that I want to get folks to enlist on.

I wasn't trying to flame anyone.  I apologize if it came out that way.  And
the "don't expect us to join you" was mostly a figure of speech.

> Like I said I have not followed every detail or legal breif or warrent
> issued on this.  The point I was trying to get intelligent people to
> remember is that (as I understand it) the decryption process (key and
> algorithum) used in DVD playback is not in the public domain and is
> owned property.  If I am wrong then I retract my comments on this issue.

And the point I was trying to get intelligent people to remember is that
the law doesn't (at this point) consider such algorithims binding*.  That
is, when someone sells me something, they lose their claim to it, and they
lose their claim to any locks/etc. on it.  They might not like this, and
they may try to claim they still own it, but the law doesn't recognize that
claim.  It doesn't matter if they sell me a car with the hood welded shut,
I have a right to cut it open and look inside.

*Yes, the DMCA is attempting to say exactly that, but it has yet to be
determined exactly how it will even be applied, and it has yet to be tested
in court.  A lot of intelligent people are in agreement that it's in open
violation of the law that exists, and when tested will be thrown out.
Until that happens (or the opposite happens), what the law does say still
seems to be what it has said historically.  And to the best of my
knowledge, shrink wrap licenses have still not been found binding by the
law of the land.

> I will not get into a long drawn out debate over the law but reverse
> engineering is NOT a right in the software world.  There are alot of
> bankrupt people who have lost this argument.  There is a reason that you
> have to license software and do not get to own it.  I can't remember the
> last time I saw a piece of commercial (consumer) software that sold
> along with a transfer of ownership.  With a book (and other printed
> material) you own the physical copy not the content.  And NO you do not
> have the right to do anything you want with the content of the book. 
> You can make reference to it, you can quote it with acknowlegement to
> the source, you can even copy excerpts from it for conveience of very
> limited distribution but that's about it.

I specifically referred to the right to do what I want to it *as long as
I'm the one using it*.  You have no inherent right to redistribute a copy
of a copyrighted work.  But you have every right to copy it for yourself,
change the format, plaster your walls with the pages, color them in, etc.
And you have every right to reverse engineer software you buy and change
it.  You can't redistribute that unless the author licenses it that way,
but in your home, you can do what you want.  Right now, anyway.

> Yes if you buy a lawn mower and want to turn it into a drag racer your
> completely within your rights.  However if you reverse engineer the
> design and then distribute your own product using any portion of that
> design or the design itself (free or for $$ doesn't matter) you'll be
> bankrupt when you get done in court.

Again, I never attempted to say otherwise.  And again, this case is not
about copying, though the MPAA wants to claim it is, because that gets
people on their side.  If it was about copying, *I* would be on their side.
But this is about fair use in one's own home.  That's what the technology
does.

-- 
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