Posted on 09/15/2010 8:52:06 AM PDT by savedbygrace
I disagree. The only way to demonstrate our utter contempt for the law is to ignore it.
Besides, breaking their crappy copy protection is not just a tool to make copies of disks. Those of us in the Linux world need to use these tools just to watch DVDs on our computers.
This only violates copyright law insofar as current law, as purchased by the copyright cartel, makes circumventing this encryption illegal regardless of an otherwise legal reason to circumvent it.
And stealing is stealing.
Unless you're hauling a DVD or Blu-ray out of a store under your coat, you're not stealing, you're committing copyright infringement. It's a big difference regardless of what the copyright cartel and its government enforcers want you to think.
Those warnings are lying to you by ommission. Prior to 1998 you could copy DVDs under the Fair Use exeptions of copyright. After a recent Library of Congress decision, teachers can legally copy portions of DVDs for educational use. In either case it's not the copying that was necessarily illegal, just the breaking of the encryption on the DVD was made illegal so that it became illegal for us to exercise our Fair Use rights.
Basically, it's all industry-purchased laws and scare tactics. This all used to be a civil issue between a producer and the copyright violator. Now the industry players have pawned off protection of their profits onto the taxpayer through the congresscritters they purchased.
They'll have to go bankrupt before it changes. Until then they'll keep buying off legislators and sitting in on copyright treaty negotiations (to the exclusion of non-corporate interests thanks to substatial campaign donations) to make sure the laws tip even more in their favor.
If you read that pull quote in my post, then you MUST have also read the previous paragraph in which I defined the stealing - stealing income.
If you really missed that, please go back and re-read my post. It’s an important distinction.
You missed the last stage: once their attempts to pass ever more intrusive copyright protection laws fails to keep them afloat, they will have the federal government subsidize big media.
There is a very important legal distinction between stealing and infringement. “Stealing” is a fiction invented for the power and profit of the copyright cartel.
You’re still not getting it.
Not much more I can add that would help.
I think you need to learn the foundations of copyright in this country. They are not what the industry and its government pawns have led you to believe.
You’re still not getting it.
You can infringe a copyright without stealing income from those in the chain of payments for purchased discs. But those who infringe a copyright in order to make income for themselves also steal income from those in the chain of payments, as do those who buy their discs from the infringers.
Many of those in that stolen-income chain are not the copyright holder. They have made contractual deals, either as individuals or as union members, that include a percentage of the disc sales. They have not been infringed because they never held a copyright, but they have been stolen from, with regard to lost income.
When you make a safety copy or a convenience copy of the disc for yourself, you are seldom stealing income from those in the chain, because you weren’t going to buy another copy anyway.
Yes, some of the purchasers of the infringers’ discs wouldn’t have bought full price discs either, but how to figure that number is pretty much impossible, IMO.
I would say they deprive people of income. I do not, ever, use the word “steal” in relation to copyright because it does not apply. Under the original constitutional copyright, a person could sue the person depriving him of income by violating his copyright. Stealing makes it criminal, which copyright was never supposed to be until the industry bought some laws.
I see what’s happening. You’re not actually reading my replies.
Whatev.
You gave the impression that the behavior you thought immoral was acceptable to the described group, thus implying that immorality was an acceptable christian principle and belief.
I see what’s happening. You’re not understanding copyright.
Hahahahahha. That’s funny.
In my reply thqat you replied to, I clearly explained why the “stealing” reference that started this discussion was NOT regarding copyright, that many of the people who are losing income because of the infringers are not even copyright holders.
But go ahead and ignore that, if it keeps you happy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.