On 7/14/13 6:33 PM, in article krvjgc$ikh$3...@dont-email.me, "Red Blade" <penac...@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 18:29:19 -0700, Snit wrote: > >> On 7/14/13 5:49 PM, in article krvgu6$ebu$2...@dont-email.me, "Red Blade" >> <penac...@yomomma.hot.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 16:51:25 -0700, Snit wrote: >>> >>> >>>> The question is about how I should protect my property... and you (in >>>> my mind correctly) acknowledged it should be my choice. And those >>>> choices include many DRM methods which are available to me. My choice. >>>> >>>> Choice is good. >>> >>> No, because the law forces us to accept your "choice" or become felons >>> and serve heavy fines and jailtime (WIPO treaty/DMCA, etc). >> >> Of course you do not get to use *my* property as *you* wish... you get >> to use my property as *I* wish (or as I license you to use it, really). >> >>> Otherwise, your malicious attempts to control your customers' private >>> lives and use of private property in their private homes, you would be >>> playing catch-up with your malicious products like you should. >> >> How is it malicious to want to control my own property? I do not follow. > > The question is who owns the product - the person who bought it > themselves and keeps it in their home to use it any way they rightfully > which, or your complete control over the consumer's life and use of the > product in their private lives and homes? Your answer is fascism, which > enables government-endorsed claims of "super-property" over actual > property and privacy, allowing for complete dictatorship of individuals > and their homes and property by the alleged "super-property" "owner". Huh? To say I own my own property is "fascism"? No: it is capitalism. That is pretty much the definition of it! If I agree to let you use my car that does not mean you own it. If you buy a DVD with my training lessons and that purchase includes a license to use the material in a way protected by copyright, you do not have rights to *my* property outside of those (unless I grant them to you). You have no rights to my property which I do not agree to. None. Claiming that my protecting my rights - something you agreed at first was my choice to do so - is not a form of fascism (nothing authoritarian about it, nothing about any leader, nothing militaristic about it, nothing nationalistic about it... I do not think you know what the word even means!). You also say that a person protecting their own property is somehow showing control over others... well, sure, you have no right to my car, my house, my copyrighted material, or any other property unless I grant you such access or control. Why would you? And why would you think it was "malicious" of me to not want people using my house in ways I have not agreed to other using any property of mine in ways I have not agreed to? Perhaps you will be kind enough to explain why you should have rights to my property even if I have not agreed to the rights you are saying you have. By the way, if it matters: I have decided to *not* use any DRM system for my DVDs and even help people to make copies to their hard drive or backups to other DVDs or media. I do have a copyright notice that defines rights for people but I figure DRM is going to be more of a hassle for users than an actual protection for me and my property. But that is my *choice*. For future products I might make a different choice. Choice is good. Nothing "fascist" or "malicious" about having choices as to how to protect my own property. What an odd claim! -- "Linux desktop is why I got into Linux in the first place. I mean, I have never, ever cared about really anything but the Linux desktop." -- Linus Torvalds _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
