<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>Latest Techdirt Comments</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<description>Easily digestible tech news....</description>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c503</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chosen Reject]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 13:10:14 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c503</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[If we added murder to copyright law does that mean murdering someone is an infringement of copyrights also?  It doesn't belong there.  You can debate about whether it should be a law, but it doesn't belong in copyright law.  It is being used by all sorts of entities that have nothing to do with copyrights.  It can be used to lock up non-copyrighted works, or even non-works (such as hardware).  It is not a copyright law, so it's removal either from title 17 or from law altogether in no way weakens copyright law.  That some copyright holders were able to use it is no different than that copyright holders are also protected by murder laws.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HEY, TIMMY, don't forget the illegal WARS:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/13573923121/retired-lt-col-violent-media-has-bred-generation-killers.shtml#c997</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[MissingFrame]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 13:08:52 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/13573923121/retired-lt-col-violent-media-has-bred-generation-killers.shtml#c997</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[I guess all those other countries in the Genocide Convention are a bunch of pansies that's why the U.S. has to bring the arsenal and take out the assholes themselves. Why even have a Convention if the U.S. is going to be the sole provider of World Policing?]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Put up or shut up.</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c481</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Zakida Paul]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 13:08:23 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c481</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Read Mike's post again.  As usual, you have misunderstood what he wrote.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c465</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Shmerl]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 13:07:59 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c465</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[The fact that someone called section 1201 of DMCA part of the copyright law doesn't make it really related to copyright in any way.<br />
<br />
Circumvention of DRM has nothing to do with copyright in itself. It might affect copyright, it might not. It's like saying that usage of wheels should be regulated by criminal law, since robbers use cars to rob banks (Cory Doctorow's analogy).]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c464</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[average_joe]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 13:07:55 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c464</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<i>I said it doesn't weaken *copyrights*. I said nothing about the law. It changes the law, but it does not weaken anyone's copyrights.</i><br />
<br />
What do you mean by "copyrights"? And are you admitting that this does weaken copyright holders rights?]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c460</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chosen Reject]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 13:05:27 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c460</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[So you're talking about a case where someone has done nothing wrong except assert their fair use rights?  Copyright has never been about stopping all forms of copyring and distribution.  The antircircumvention clause tried to add that, and did so in such a way as to end run around fair use, and to include all sorts of circumstances where copyrights weren't involved at all.  That's why the DMCA is cited by printer manufacturers and why it prevents unlocking phones.  Those issues have nothing to do with copyright.  The anticircumvention clause was misplaced in copyright law.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Put up or shut up.</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c448</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[average_joe]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 13:04:51 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c448</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Read my posts. I've said the same thing several times now. Sorry if you're not understanding my point.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c445</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[PRMan]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 13:04:47 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c445</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[I'm pretty sure that GeoHotz bought his PS3 and all the games he played on it too.  And he begged publicly that his Linux fix not be used to further piracy.  Didn't stop Sony from trying to ruin his life.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c423</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[average_joe]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 13:04:09 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c423</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[I'm admitting what the text of the DMCA says. Bypassing accessing controls violates copyright law, regardless of whether once bypassed the person engages in copyright infringement or not. It's two separate torts under the Copyright Act.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c420</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[PRMan]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 13:02:47 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c420</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[So, you admit to using the DMCA to attack people breaking controls for "noninfringing uses" (your words).<br />
<br />
So, you have admitted that it went too far, thereby proving our point.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c409</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[average_joe]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 13:02:45 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c409</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[The DMCA is part of copyright law, so weakening the DMCA weakens copyright law. It's taking rights away from copyright holders.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c400</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Shmerl]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 13:02:40 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c400</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[The point is, it's not about enjoying any albums. It's about fixing a law which is harmful and have no good reason to exist.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Put up or shut up.</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c399</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Keroberos]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 13:02:35 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c399</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[You actually have to <b><i>make</i></b> a point before anyone can refute it. You've been asked once by Chosen Reject, and now I ask you again. Support your claim. If you can't, your statements on this subject are meaningless.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130224/22341022086/system-used-new-six-strikes-cas-falsely-identifies-game-mods-as-nbc-tv-shows.shtml#c3350</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[AY200]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 13:02:19 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130224/22341022086/system-used-new-six-strikes-cas-falsely-identifies-game-mods-as-nbc-tv-shows.shtml#c3350</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[No damn reason to not use a VPN, people. Or pwd protecting your .rars in a way the bots can't read, along with randomizing the file name...]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>What are maximalists worried about?</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/08324323118/trade-group-representing-many-large-companies-claims-that-exceptions-blind-would-cast-aside-copyright.shtml#c1497</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sheogorath]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 13:01:36 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130517/08324323118/trade-group-representing-many-large-companies-claims-that-exceptions-blind-would-cast-aside-copyright.shtml#c1497</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[There is a country that approved a law to be implemented in October which has a provision like this. It says if a blind person wants an audio or braille version of a print book and one isn't legally available, a sighted person is allowed to make one for them without having to approach the rights owners and ask, "Mother, may I?" The country? It's the UK, which has protected copyrights since at least the 18th century. The implementation of this part of the Hargreaves Review doesn't so much 'ride roughshod over rights' as encourage rights holders to make accessible copies available over fears of 'losing revenue' on what they currently refuse to produce.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c398</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[PRMan]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 13:01:25 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c398</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Our point is that the DMCA was intended to enforce copyright but has gone way beyond that into harming American tinkering efforts vs. the rest of the world.<br />
<br />
People are starting to recognize that we have lost the ability to tinker and come up with new ideas and that many new ideas are now starting in other countries instead of America.<br />
<br />
This will harm you as well, if you live in America, but you are too greedy/foolish/stupid to see it.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c386</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[average_joe]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 13:01:17 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c386</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Good grief, read my posts. Right now, copyright holders have a claim against those that bypass access controls to engage in noninfringing uses. Under the proposed change, copyright holders would not have a claim against those that bypass access controls to engage in noninfringing uses. Thus, copyright holders would have LESS rights than they currently do. I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing. I'm pointing out that it is indeed a weakening of copyright law.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c377</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chosen Reject]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 12:59:33 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c377</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[What rights are lessened?  You still have the right to add copy protection measures to whatever you want to (copyrighted or not).  I still don't have the right to copy your copyrighted works under those certain circumstances, but now I would have the right to copy non-copyrighted works all the time or copyrighted works under those circumstances.<br />
<br />
The only directions I see rights going here is an increase in rights the people should already have.  But copyrights aren't weakened at all.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c363</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[PRMan]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 12:59:24 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c363</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Correct.  It lessens the DMCA, not copyright.  The DMCA goes beyond copyright in a bad way and should be fixed.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c345</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[average_joe]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 12:59:23 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130521/10401723156/if-you-think-you-should-actually-own-products-you-bought-now-would-be-good-time-to-call-congress.shtml#c345</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Pulling out the old "temper tantrum" trope. Classic. And, of course, you're not addressing my point.<br />
<br />
Currently, copyright holders have a legally enforceable claim against those that circumvent access controls. This is regardless of whether those people engage in copyright infringement. Under this proposal, copyright holders would no longer have that same legally enforceable claim against people that circumvent access controls yet do not engage in copyright infringement. Thus, this would give copyright holders LESS rights than they currently have. Under the proposed change, there would exist people against whom the copyright holder does not have a legally enforceable claim which under the current regime they currently do have such a legally enforceable claim. This is a WEAKENING of copyright holder's rights.<br />
<br />
Please address my actual point directly, if you would.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>