[NTLUG:Discuss] MI2 boycott

[Mark Bainter]

Jeremy Blosser [jblosser at firinn.org] wrote:
> 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.

Agreed.

> 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.

Amen!

> 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.
> 

While you are at it, don't forget to support UCITA.  It's the same concept.  

-- 
``A system without PERL is like a hockey game without a fight.''
				-- Mitch Wright