Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (4348 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [SLE] The No DMCA license restricts US viewers of this site
  • From: Curtis Rey <crrey@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:28:09 -0500
  • Message-id: <200210241228.09527.crrey@xxxxxxxxxxx>
All this hipocracy reminds me of a law passed in California more than a decade
ago. The law was sponsered by the automobile insurance companies and when
passed madated that every driver in California carry a proof of insurance
card to be presented on demand by law enforcement. My father was a police
officer for over 30 years in San Diego and when asked about the subject
stated that the law was a scam to force people to buy car insurance and boost
profits for them (thouugh it's wise to carry it not eveyone can afford it).
He said that the unofficial stance was to not enforce it. I was pulled over
shortly after this went into law and was asked to present my insurance card
along with my license and registration. I didn't have one and was given the
opportunity to acquire it and present it in court to have the case dismissed
- I did and it was.

Shortly after that I was pulled over again (yes, I liked to use the skinny
pedel to the left alot). and this time the officer did not ask for my proof
of insurance (remember 1 in 6 in the US live in Calif = a lot of people).
Seems that the amount of non-compliant people was so large that the courts
were getting bogged down handling case involving people appearing of
secondary violation related to traffic citations. Even the judges were
getting fed up with trying cases related to insurance issues. The law
enforcement agencies also voiced their displeasure regarding being quasi
insurance compliance agents. Well, after a few the law in it's present state
was repealled and having to provide proof of insurance was not mandatory,
though getting into an accident without insurance took on a new face.

So, civil disobedeince and the ability to comply had a dramatic effect on
standing legislation and existing statutes. Regarding the DMCA and deCSS,
and all those present and forecoming bills in the house and senate are more a
real threat to professionals and providers (aka Napster, Kazaa, etc....).
Otherwise the courts (both juvinial and adult) will become bogged down with
cases involving people busted for little more that listening to music or
watching a movie. This is bad press for the entertainment and computer
industries in the long run. And the potential backlash for them IMHO is
substantial. Those fools in the entertainment industry and at M$ are too
arrogant for their own good as far as I'm concerned.

Ya, good ahead and bust my mom or daughter for watching Steel Magnolias or
listening to Brittney Spears on their PC. Right...! There's positive
industry promotive behavior for the RIAA and Jack Valente. I don't have the
slightest problem with artists and agents getting paid for their work, I
have been a guitar player of professional ability for 29 years (I'm 42 and
started playing at 13). I know all to well about not getting paided for my
efforts. However, that particular argument is a smoke screen. It's about
locking down and locking out markets. Let's face it, most of the leaked
before releases stuff from Hollywood comes from privy industry insiders.,
They can't figure out a new market strategy so they want to use the law and a
heavy hand to force people to stick with it's present form rather than adapt.
I'm not really worried about Joe and Jane Q. Public but more over about the
state of research and development that will suffer from these laws. This of
course only effects those in the U.S. and frankly it will go the way of other
RIAA copy protection schemes. And as far as hardware and copy protection. I
can't see Seagate, IBM, or any other OEM selling this crap overseas to
Europe, Asia, South America, etc.. If they try I see overseas OEM making big
headway into thier own and other non-U.S. markets in a very big way. Once
again not smart.

Just MHO, Curtis.

On Wednesday 23 October 2002 03:20, jfweber@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> ** This email message from michael norman <michaeltnorman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> on
> Tue, 22 Oct 2002 21:27:53 +0000 Will be delivered via Owl Services Dept
> **My question : how much of this lunacy will affect us outside of US ?
> **
> **Mike
> well, not at all, unless you make the mistake of coming here AND trying to
> publish somehting that has been declared"off limits" Looks like we are
> turning into GB and perhaps a little china thrown in <SIGH>
> IT really is time for the US citizenry to make certain their
> representatives in congress know they ae seriously displeased and wont vote
> for them ever again for anything ...
> At least join the EFF .. they are fghting this stuff tooth and nail , but
> need help , in the form of members who will write elected officials , and
> perhaps every now and then throw a few dollars their way .. ( they don't do
> the usual begging serenade each time you access the web site .. )
> Right now, it's our only hope as they are at least semi orgaised , speak
> for a pretty goonly number of people , AND have their own lawyer staff (
> hence the need for cash every now and again.. even lawyers gotta eat <g>)

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups