This was because the PEOPLE didn't want it to be illegal.
Technically speaking, people *DID* want it to be illegal, at first.
However, people soon found out that their scapegoat of alcoholism being all of the problems of society was a falsehood and the fact that you had to now DEAL with them instead of being able to drink to try and forget them, even for a little bit, caused real issues.
So now, people wanted alcohol to get away from problems, but it was illegal, so they started to make their own.
And that was how organized crime came into being in the 1930s.
Once alcohol was legal again, though, most of the organized crime either went away or moved onto something else.
Huh... I wonder if that should be applied to marijuana or something.
No matter how many times we've told you that this isn't about weakening copyright, but rather about letting owners have control of their items, you just put your fingers in your ears and go "NO! IT'S WEAKENING COPYRIGHT! DEBATE ME, MIKE! WHY YOU RUN AWAY LIKE A COWARD?!"
So, really, AJ, you're the dumbass troll.
All of your points have been countered and you just keep replying with the same lies.
No, you're just such a dumbass troll that he's done arguing with you because you'll just go, like you're doing now, "LALALALALALALALALALALALA!!! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!! WHY YOU NO DEBATE ME?! LALALALALALALALALALALALALALA!!!!" with your fingers in your ears.
DRM does NOT protect copyright. DRM is a POS that entertainment industries put up so that people couldn't make legitimate copies of their CDs, DVDs, or Video Games because the publisher didn't want that.
In fact, AJ, DRM specially controls how content is used. There is *NOTHING* about DRM related to copyright OTHER than the DMCA.
So, go back to your MPAA masters and tell them that DRM may just be outlawed soon.
I'm sorry, no, wait, I'm NOT sorry at all, that clause really is total B.S. and goes against nature.
If you own something, you can DO WHAT YOU WANT WITH IT!
The first sale doctrine, the Supreme Court's ruling on the matter of buying something and then re-selling and doing what you want with it, states that copyright law does NOT trump a person's right to do with property as they please.
Just because it'll allow me to use MY property that *I* legally purchased the way *I* want to and not the way *THEY* want me to doesn't mean that it weakens copyright.
If I buy a cellphone, a PS3, or a 3DS right now, they are region/service locked and breaking that lock is against the law, even if I legally purchase a game/service from another region/service provider so that I can play/use the game/service.
I'm pretty sure that's wrong.
Or did you miss the case where the Supreme Court slapped down the textbook publisher and said first sale doctrine trumps your copyright?
How about all the legitimate Fair Uses that get taken down daily? How about the fact that the DMCA doesn't allow me to buy a phone from Sprint, then, when my contract runs out, run it on, let's say Straight Talk for how I want because it's locked onto Sprint.
There's nothing about copyright in that, buskahosa.
If he has/had a website that had infringing stuff on it, he wouldn't care if it got taken down for no reason then, right?
but I think a more apt thing is this...
If someone at his home had something that was given to them, even if it was legally bought, from someone else, his house was raided, everything confiscated by some military then his house burned down while he can only watch in horror...