[LaughingVulcan]

Originally Posted by nerys

You intentionally ignore my points and intentionally raise points of irrelevance???

No, but it hardly seems worth discussing it with you at this point. Perhaps I have understand exactly everything you have said, and you have misunderstood me. It is very clear that we do not agree about many things. I'm for the most part comfortable with leaving it at that. But, oh well.... let's go for it....

<snip>
AGAIN apples to oranges. I SAID MANUFACTURER making it illegal. YOU are not talking about the manufacturer of the car you are talking about the POLICE who have NOTHING to do with the manufacture of the car.

Actually I was talking about the enforcement of the law. You seem to have the impression that if you don't agree with the law, or that if you differ in its' interpretation, your view should control. Not much more I can say about that, other than others who differ with you have made the laws. Others who file the lawsuits may disagree with you. And, as far as I can tell, others who would judge according to those laws will disagree with you.

I can walk into pep boys right not and select from DOZENS of different tires and wheels to put on my car and FORD or Mercedes can not say a THING to be about it.
<snip>

As long as those tires were manufactured according to product safety standards. In short, the law does dictate and give authority as to what kind of tires you can put on your car. I'd say that you were the first to introduce irrelevancies by trying to compare DRM and Copyright law to Tires. But, at any rate, you bet there are laws which are enforced in the manufacture, sale, and remanufacture and resale of tires.

YOU are not stupid. You clearly have enough intelligence to use the computer you typed your reply on and you seem able to coherently speak this language. SO since I can not call you stupid I must call you "trying to force your view" because you simply disagree with my view all while clearly not understanding MY view to begin with.

I'm not "forcing my view" on you. I personally couldn't care less if you agree with me or not. But I could care that someone comes along and reads this thread and figures they have a walkaround to the DMCA.

What property was taken exactly? I PURCHASE a book "crack" the DRM and put that book on a different reader. Please enlighten me as to what damages I incurred onto them and what exactly did I fail to pay for?

Once again. I also did not pay for the book at the library. I do not even pay a membership fee. SO what damages?

I borrow a book from a friend. I am READING IT without PAYING FOR IT. I should goto jail?

Now you are talking apples and oranges.
You check out a library book. You do not own the content. You do not have the right to go to Kinko's and photocopy the contents of the book, put it in a binder, and put it on a shelf.

The same applies if you borrow a book from your friend: It does not give you license to photocopy it. It does not even give you a right to take a paper and pencil and rewrite the whole thing on graph paper because you want to change the format of it.

In either case, the only "right" you have is to copy and/or republish a limited portion of the book for certain specific purposes as outlined in fair use doctrine.

Aside from the issues relating to the DMCA which clearly says you are wrong if you circumvent the DRM: IF the publisher has republished it in the format you are converting to, you have invalidated the capital investment the publisher made in the technology to republish the work in said format. Maybe a fractional, tiny amount, but there nonetheless.

In addition, the publisher has the right for the work to appear in the format they have determined it should be published in. Perhaps the company made a decision that they do not want to support lrf format for tactical business reasons. "We're in competition with {Sony, Adobe, Palm, whatever}. You, in deciding to republish our work in that format, are affecting our business interest - which is to dominate the market share. We do not want our work on the Sony Reader, and your having made it available in that format -- even for your own use -- has hurt our support of the Mobipocket format."

Let's say you have converted it. But, like a lot of copies that are circulated via filesharing, it's a butt-ugly job of conversion. Typos. Misformatting. Etc. (I'm not saying you're filesharing it, just that your conversion looks like crap compared to the original version.) You show it to a friend. The friend decides that any author who makes typos like that shouldn't be read. The friend decides that they aren't going to purchase that book. So, by your effort of conversion, you have denied the possibility of a royalty for that author.

One other way it can damage an author: Let's say that author John Goodwriter knows one heck of a lot about publishing, and has a smart agent. Mr. Goodwriter's bestseller, How to Publish eBooks, is in a print version, but the author retains the copyright.

(An aside: It does happen - Robert Heinlein, for example, owned the copyright to most if not all of his works of his works, and now his estate does.)

Back to Mr. Goodwriter.... So, he decides at first to not allow eBook publishing rights. It ain't out there on Fictionwise, Mobipocket, Connect, you name it. After a year or two of stellar sales Mr. Goodwriter decides to sell the rights for the eBook to Sony, exclusively. He makes a lot more money allowing first eBook rights to Sony.

But you're impatient. Eh, I hate Sony and want to read it in LIT format. So you crack it and convert it.

Now, six months later, Mr. Goodwriter needs to pay for his garage. So he resells the rights (because his contract with Sony allows it,) to Microsoft. Microsoft releases a LIT version. But, of course, you owned the Sony version. Mr. Goodwriter doesn't need a new garage anyway. He doesn't need your money, right?

Let's make one more adventure in copyright, a short one: You own a paper copy of a book. It's a good book. You spill coffee on it, though, and leave it in your storage shed all summer where it molders. Do you have the right to get out your old Smith-Corona manual and retype the whole thing? It's only for your benefit, after all, right? Answer: No. Just as in the library/lending examples above. You own the physical medium. You do not own the information contained therein.

Here lies the difference between Copyright, Patent, and Trademark.

The law is wrong. This is not in dispute. anyone who stops and thinks about it will clearly understand this.

Maybe so. Hot flash for you: I don't like DRM. I don't like the DMCA. I don't like the idea of buying eBooks for texts that I have sitting on my bookshelf. And I don't like having some really fine books on that shelf that I can't get for my Reader.

And I even agree with you: I think that if you own a paper book, you should have the right to have an eCopy of it. And that if you have an eBook in one format, you should be able to place it into another format - especially since there are platforms that only use certain kinds of books.

I think you should have all these rights. But, if the law as it is specifically prohibits that course of action, then that is what the law is. Talking about civil disobedience is fine. If you're right you will indeed succeed. And if you're wrong.... well, what's that worth to you?

On top of that the DMCA is not even law. It illegal and was NULL AND VOID the moment it was conceived. The fact that it is "enforced" does not change that it is illegal. AND its illegality is NOT an opinion. It is an absolute FACT. there is ZERO ambiguity in the first amendment. It says CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW ....

Can it be "illegal"? Fine, whatever. Until it is overturned, it is the law. Until it is overturned, you may be fined and jailed for violating it. To me, it is that simple.

So if you want to try overturning it, great. If you want to ignore it and keep going until and unless it is enforced on you, great. As I said earlier, I don't really care. But please show me any action in which, "I don't buy it because it doesn't fit my moral compass," has been successfully employed as a defense.

And I do know how freedom works. It is not free. Nor is it unlimited. There are limits on rights, from the classic example of, "I can shout fire in a crowded theatre," to, "I can walk down main street New York with a sixgun on my hip." (The second is a bad example: You can actually walk down main street Phoenix with a sixgun on your hip.) Your right to make a fist ends at the moment it swings towards my nose and I reasonably believe you are throwing a punch.

Its not about the majority of the people agreeing with me (they do) its about them actually being motivated enough to CARE and actually stand up and say NO. We are a country of sheeple.

Then, as I said, run for office and become one who changes it. If you can. Or back someone who will do what you feel is right.

I do not do as the law commands. I do as my moral compass demands. In most cases there is no conflict between the law and my moral compass. In this one there is.

But your moral compass is not the law. The law is. And if I support the law, and the majority of my community, state, and nation does, I will let you guess which one will swing first.

As to corporate rights. They are privileges. Only citizens have rights IE can not be taken away without just cause. Corporate rights are Granted by law and are therefore revocable by law. LAW CAN NOT REVOKE MY RIGHTS. Thats why they are called inalienable.

THE DMCA takes away my right to free speech. THIS IS NOT LEGAL. the 1st amendment makes this VERY clear. Therefore the DMCA is NOT LAW and is being illegally enforced. Period. Prove me wrong? SHOW me anywhere in the constitution where the 1st amendment was revoked?

As I said above: Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). Wikipedia Article Revoked? No. But limited, with Justice Holmes establishing the Clear and Present Danger doctrine. Modified by Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), which holds that the violation must cause violence faster than a law officer can be summoned. But, still, you cannot incite to riot and claim that it's your free speech to do so.

And by current U.S. law, you can be sued by a Corporation. That's pretty much what matters.

SHOW ME the law that says that a corporation can dictate what I can do with my personal property in my own home (NOT counting stupid stuff like killing people)

Please show me this law? (not counting the DMCA since its invalid)

IF YOU CAN find a law explain to me how this would not be a direct violation of my 4th amendment rights? (remember NO contract is signed here)

I await your reply. Please try not to pick examples that you RIGHT WELL know are NOT relevant to this discussion. Safety lights???? Your kidding right?

And you also are making deliberate misunderstandings. Can I make you do something (or not do something) with your personal property in your home? Define "make."

Can I walk into your home and make you turn down your stereo which is playing too loudly? No. Can I call the police, and have them make you turn down your radio? Yes.

Can I stop you from mounting a spotlight with a bat on the roof of your house? No. Does that give you the right to shine it straight up into the air? Not if you live in my neighborhood, which is an exit corridor for our local airport.

Can Microsoft corporation walk into your house and unplug your computer because you decide to break a LIT book and convert it to unencrypted PDF? No. Can they sue you for violations of the DMCA and copyright infringement? Well, I'm not going to try.

Edited to Add: Are legal and enforceable two different things? Of course they are. Are all laws enforceable? No. Are all laws "legal"? Until they are overturned. That simple.