Anyway, you're missing the point (big surprise) again (shocker, I know)
Those examples that you listed with the car, knife and gun...
Speeding puts people's lives in danger. Knifing someone takes away a person's life. Shooting a gun can kill or injure people, which interferes with their rights to live.
Now then...
How does unlocking my electronics take away a person's rights like those do?
All unlocking does is, instead of taking away rights, GIVES people the right to use their stuff as they see fit so long as what they're doing doesn't interfere with another person's rights.
Throwing bricks, stabbing someone, speeding, shooting, all of those endanger human lives.
Unlocking a phone or video game system doesn't hurt ANYBODY!!!
This was because the PEOPLE didn't want it to be illegal.
WELL...
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.
if you throw a brick at someone or something, you cause harm, thus your rights interfere with someone else's rights to live. In that case, your rights are trumped.
So, AJ, kindly, use some fucking common sense for once in your miserable life.
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...
On the post: Reporters Find Exposed Personal Data Via Google, Threatened With CFAA Charges
Re: Actually...
Don't you watch The Daily Show man?
On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress
Re: Yes.
Anyway, you're missing the point (big surprise) again (shocker, I know)
Those examples that you listed with the car, knife and gun...
Speeding puts people's lives in danger. Knifing someone takes away a person's life. Shooting a gun can kill or injure people, which interferes with their rights to live.
Now then...
How does unlocking my electronics take away a person's rights like those do?
All unlocking does is, instead of taking away rights, GIVES people the right to use their stuff as they see fit so long as what they're doing doesn't interfere with another person's rights.
Throwing bricks, stabbing someone, speeding, shooting, all of those endanger human lives.
Unlocking a phone or video game system doesn't hurt ANYBODY!!!
You seem to fail to grasp this basic concept, AJ.
On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
WELL...
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.
Something to think about.
On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress
Re:
Find out what happens next time on Techdirt, the ongoing chronicles!
On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm just calling it like I see it, AJ.
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.
On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But there is no RIGHT to fair use, only a privilege.
that's a flat-out lie!
Copyright is the privilege, not Fair Use. Fair Use is the right and is how creativity fucking works!
But you'll just ignore what I say like you ignore everything else that counters your little world, won't you?
On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
hoo hoo hoo!
that is Wrong! Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG!
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.
On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Stop using stupid arguments.
if you throw a brick at someone or something, you cause harm, thus your rights interfere with someone else's rights to live. In that case, your rights are trumped.
So, AJ, kindly, use some fucking common sense for once in your miserable life.
On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because, honestly, AJ, if you buy something, shouldn't you *OWN* the thing?
And, according to the First Sale Doctrine, which TRUMPS copyright law, once you buy something, you can do what you WANT to it, no questions asked.
On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress
Re: Re: average_joe
On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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?
On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
On the post: If You Think You Should Actually Own Products You Bought, Now Would Be A Good Time To Call Congress
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By making it LEGAL to take your stuff and make it work the way you want it to so you can use it for legitimate stuff?
Like say, if I wanted to Jailbreak a Nintendo 3DS so I could import Japanese games, how is that taking rights away from Nintendo?
On the post: Swedish Prosecutor Claims Registrar Of .se Domains An 'Accomplice' In Infringement Because Of Pirate Bay Domain
So...
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...
Well, at least he'd know how Kim Dotcom feels.
On the post: Trade Group Representing Many Large Companies Claims That Exceptions For The Blind Would 'Cast Aside' Copyright
Re:
And you and your masters would know that, since you perfected that art decades ago, wouldn't you?
On the post: Congress Grandstanding Over Google Glass 'Privacy' Concerns; Next Up: Privacy Concerns Over Your Eyes
I'll tell you why...
On the post: Court Dumps Prenda's Subpoena
Re: Prenda Fall down
On the post: Eric Holder Claims Terrorists Are Involved In 'IP Theft'
Re: Re:
...
Whenever I see "arguments" like that, it just sickens me.