[MPlayer-users] Re: Rescuing a scratched DVD

[D Richard Felker III]

On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 03:31:49PM -0500, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
> [Automatic answer: RTFM (read DOCS, FAQ), also read DOCS/bugreports.html]
> D Richard Felker III <dalias at aerifal.cx> writes:
> 
> > On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 10:42:44PM -0500, Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
> >> [Automatic answer: RTFM (read DOCS, FAQ), also read DOCS/bugreports.html]
> >> D Richard Felker III <dalias at aerifal.cx> writes:
> >> 
> >> [snip]
> >> 
> >> > My point is that you should not be paying a premium for a DVD over
> >> > what the media costs.
> >> 
> >> How about what the production of the film costs?  Are you suggesting
> >> that film producers should 1) operate at a loss, and 2) continue to
> >> produce films?
> 
> > That's their choice. I don't care whether they do or not. I do care if
> > they litigate against people for exercising basic personal liberty.
> 
> I don't see how it is a ``basic personal liberty'' not to be bound by
> (most) license agreements.  The DMCA prohibitions are another story.

Freedom to do anything you want in the privacy of your own home,
provided it does not harm others, is a basic freedom.

So is free speech. Copyright makes it illegal for me to sing a song
someone else wrote in public. That is a gross infringement of free
speech.

Your comment about "license agreements" has nothing to do with
copyright law since they are a myth manufactured by the software
industry. They are not valid and there is no legal provision that
makes you have to agree to any idiotic terms in order to use software.
If you believe in this backwards law, why not at least learn what the
crap you believe in says?

Copyright law was a legitimate compromise between personal freedom and
the interests of the author when it was first created, for 2 reasons.
One, it mainly affected publishing companies, not individuals, since
individuals had no means to mass-copy written works. Two, even if an
individual did decide to make copies of a copyrighted work (by hand,
for instance) the law was _never_ enforced against individuals. Now
both of those circumstances have changed, and the law is NOT
ACCEPTABLE.

> >> > Copyright monopoly is not any more legitimate than other
> >> > government-granted monopolies as a way to make money. If you can't
> >> > make a profit without enforcing it against individuals, you should
> >> > find another business model.
> >> 
> >> You can be sure that without patents and copyrights, there would be
> >> far less innovation generally,
> 
> > This is blatently false. In fact the opposite is true.
> 
> Look at a popular game like Quake.  Would Quake exist if there were no
> copyrights? 

Do I care?

> Probably not, since it would mean that Id software would
> have no incentive to make it.  So all those people that enjoy Quake
> currently would be harmed by the lack of copyrights.

No "harm" is done to them, since they lost nothing that they
inherently should have possessed. Believe it or not, people are not
born with a "right to Quake"! On the other hand, they _are_ born with
rights to free speech and not to be harassed by the state for the
monopoly interests of the privileged few.

> You seem be suggesting that all those that currently produce software,
> pharmaceuticals, etc. would continue to do so as hobbyists, even without
> being payed. 

Software, no, many would not. But I think we all know all _software_
should be free anyway; that's not disputed. Getting rid of the nonfree
software would be a benefit to humanity.

As for your argument about pharmaceuticals, it shows a great degree of
ignorance. Because of these monopoly rights, drug companies have an
incentive to produce "solutions" that keep the ill dependent on them,
rather than actually curing diseases. Why would you produce a cure for
AIDS or cancer if you could instead produce expensive treatments so
that people have to keep coming back for more??

> You could argue that the
> government could instead fund all pharmaceutical research, but it seems
> very likely the government would be rather inefficient at doing so.

More typical republican blabber. I don't care whether it's governments
or foundations or corporations producing them. As long as there's a
need, someone will step up and find a way to make medicine.

> > There would probably be less, and that's a good thing. Get rid of the
> > crap that's just made to make a profit and what remains is the real
> > art.
> 
> That ``crap'' makes a profit because people like to see it, buy it,
> etc.  By eliminating copyrights and patents, that ``crap'' would not be
> produced in the first place, and so those people that decided that
> they _benefit_ more from seeing or buying the work than from having the
> $10 or whatever it costs would not be able to obtain that benefit.

Too bad for them. Maybe they'd find something worthwhile to entertain
them instead.

> Thus, those people are harmed by a lack of copyrights also.

Again, this statement is idiotic.

> >> It is reasonable to argue that the time limits on copyrights and
> >> patents be reduced, but abolishing copyrights and patents in entirety
> >> would help no one.
> 
> > Also blatently false.
> 
> I admit that is possible that someone would _not_ be harmed by lack of
> copyrights.  Most people do benefit from copyrights though: another good
> example is books.  If there were no copyrights, there would be far fewer
> books.  Should we deny to all those that currently buy books the
> opportunity to benefit from trading the bookstore price of the book for
> the book?

It has nothing to do with the opportunity to trade the price. It has
everything to do with being forced to trade their freedom. If
copyright only applied to book publishers, no problem. But as soon as
it keeps me from typing or OCR'ing a book I have and sharing it with a
friend, that's not acceptable.

BTW, the same thing I said about movies applies to books. Get rid of
the crap and only leave the stuff that the authors are writing for its
own sake.

One final guess...you're a techie kid who sees a future for yourself
profiting from copyright, so you sell out and take advantage of it
against your own personal interests (all the world's wealth of
information at your fingertips to freely use and share). Wake up. Even
if you get a "good" job coding, your employer will own everything you
ever think up and you'll get a decent salary until they eventually lay
you off, and then you'll be screwed and never get to look at again
(much less use) the stuff you wrote. Well, look on the bright side:
fortunately, all you wrote was worthless database stuff anyway. ;)

Rich