Elaine -HFB- Ashton said:
> David H. Adler [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth:
> *>
> *>I think people understand that just fine. The blurring of the line
> *>between making piracy illegal and making technology that one *can* use
> *>for piracy illegal is where people have issues. Well, the *right*
> *>people, anyway. :-)
>
> We are on the same page then :) but I just don't see how the 'free speech'
> argument will work here.
>
> If I happened to have the diagrams of all the keys for toyotas for the
> model year 2000 along with all the VINS so that people oculd make the keys
> and steal those cars at will, I don't think people would be willing to
> defend my hacking the system to liberate this information. Freedom fighter
> liberating persecuted toyotas or criminal? If you own a 2000 toyta that
> was stolen due to my actions, i'd guess you wouldn't be compelled to think
> me anything but a criminal.
Actually, the DeCSS is more like the keys to your house. The MPAA is trying
to make it illegal for you to make a copy of the key to your front door. Even
worse, they own the key to your front door, and insist on the right to
confiscate your house if you don't do things the way they want.
In terms of the keys/VINS, it probably would be legal. I know that describing
bomb-making is protected by the First Amendment (ever seen the book _The
Anarchists Cookbook_?).
Contrary to what the MPAA would have people believe, not one piece of illegal
copying has been attributed to DeCSS. However, many illegal copies have come
from Hong Kong, et al. How? Through the simple means of slurping up the bits
on one disk, then spitting them down on another. No decryption required.
DeCSS is not about copy protection, but about access control, something
traditionally not allowed under Copyright law.
>
> The technology is cool, but I think legislators are trying their best to
> make things equitable in these rather rapidly changing times. There needs
> to be a way to make sure that people get compensated for their work so
> that they can feed their families and keep on creating and that won't come
> until the discussion turns from the technology itself, to the people as
> they are the real issue.
Nope, bought & paid for by the companies. Note that the RIAA does not have
anything to do with the artists - they represent the _Recording_ industry.
Similarly for the MPAA. Copyright was designed for the artists:
"Congress shall have the power ... To promote the Progress of Science and
useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
That's it in a nutshell. What the RIAA/MPAA want to do is remove fair use, so
their companies (threatened by the ability of artists to avoid the middleman)
can continue to rake in huge profits.
>
> It's too bad we don't have a 'Technology Ambassador' to the US Congress
> and the Supreme Court to help them navigate some of the issues.
Could use one. Also someone who could clue them in to the Constitution.
jeff
