Slashdot Mirror
Danish DRM Breaker Turns Himself In To Test Backup Law
coaxial writes "In Denmark, it's legal to make copies of commercial videos for backup or other private purposes. It's also illegal to break the DRM that restricts copying of DVDs. Deciding to find out which law mattered, Henrik Anderson reported himself for 100 violations of the DRM-breaking law (he ripped his DVD collection to his computer) and demanded that the Danish anti-piracy Antipiratgruppen do something about it. They promised him a response, then didn't respond. So now he's reporting himself to the police. He wants a trial, so that the legality of the DRM-breaking law can be tested in court."
This is really brave. Not just rant about how stupid a law is, or how unenforceable, and then just break it. But break it, deliberately turn yourself in, and show how stupid/unenforceable the law is.
From an egoistic short-term perspective this is probably seen as just stupid, but this is the way to actually enact some changes.
Bravo!
Civil disobedience done right. The world would be a better place if more of us (and I'm specifically pointing to empty-nest geezers like that one in the mirror) had the cojones to do similarly rather than constantly bitching.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
I'm very glad civil-rights leaders in the 60's weren't so cowardly.
There is a war going on for your mind.
If we lived in a true democracy (for the people), DRM would never exist
If we lived in a true democracy (for the people), DRM would never exist
If you lived in a true democracy you would get the laws that people voted for - this may or may not include DRM
To quote Men In Black
A person is smart, but people are stupid
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Except he's in Denmark. I can't comment specifically but many European nations have sliding scale fines.
DRM solely exists to provide corporations more control over the products they sell. It in no way is beneficial to the average user.
So therefore the average users, or the people who provide the majority of votes, would never vote for DRM.
Peasant: Well I didn't vote for it
RIAA: you don't VOTE for DRM!
Peasant: Well how did we get DRM then?
I don't know what the repercussions are in Denmark but here in the US when you see FBI warnings before a movie stating you'll be fined $150,000 and 10 years in a PMITA prison... I'd rather just keep my mouth shut and let someone who actually got caught challenge the system.
That quote is from the +5 informative post in the Kudos comment thread. A lot has changed since the 60's. Federal Minimum sentences, outrages fines, etc. Also if your skin color gives you away you really can't keep your head down so you had to fight for your rights. This is something that anyone can avoid; boycott or follow their rules. As noted in the comments from the torrent freak website: the probable outcome (if this goes to trial) is that the law will be changed to not allow personal backup copies; not that the circumvention will be removed.
So was the troll cause I was going for my first, first post ever on any forum, or because you disagree that its best to avoid law enforcement unless you can help it?
We need that in America. It is completely absurd that if Bill Gates and I committed the same criminal offense, we would incur the same fine. Bill would pull the money out of his wallet in much the same manner that I buy a pack of gum and go about his day, whereas I would be financially devastated. In this case, while the actual dollar amount of the fines were equal, the punishment absolutely was not. The fine should be adjusted so that the punishment is equal in both cases -- it is completely absurd that this is not the case already.
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
If you lived in a true democracy you would get the laws that people voted for - this may or may not include DRM
That's actually a pretty important point. In a system where you can get laws passed based on the majority's will a society tends to develop some terrible foibles. Take California for example. Here in California, we have a proposition system in our state government. Anyone can write a proposition (item to be voted on to become law) and then get that proposition, no matter how biased, stupid, or retarded onto a ballot via petition. With enough activism and bullshitting, therefore, we could literally have a person write a law outlawing use of dihydrogen monoxide in every household, spread some FUD and shout louder than any sane person out there, raise a very passionate but misinformed movement, and get that law on the ballot. Then, if the majority of voters that turn out vote for the proposition, that proposition becomes law. This is one of the closest systems to direct democracy that I have ever seen in government. It has its consequences.
For instance, our population continues to vote for convenience projects funded by the government. We want a high speed train? Turn it into a proposition. God forbid we let a private company develop one. Nope, let's have our state government build it with our tax dollars. We need more revenue? Well we don't want to raise taxes so let's just let our congress figure that one out. This trend happens continuously and, after a few decades of retarded laws and projects, our budget is such a mess that even an educated (maybe) and bloated congress cannot figure out how the hell to solve it.
Another example? Sure. There is a large portion (though not a majority) of folk in California that think gays should have the right to marry. Thus, over the past few years, these groups have written a number of propositions trying to legalize it. They have come in strangely worded forms that helped to confuse the issue in the minds of most voters. They have been, repetitively, met by an equally passionate, and, in my opinion, bigoted, movement that votes down said propositions. Never mind silly things like civil rights, equality, respect for other folks. Never mind studies done to show that gay families can and do function just as well as hetero families and so on. None of those details have stopped a very vocal group of people from implementing a systematic discrimination into our very state laws.
That is the consequence of true democracy. The mob rules. If the mob is stupid, stupidity rules. If this mob is full of asshattery, asshattery rules. If the mob is kind and just and intelligent, compassion, justice, and intelligence rules.
I am not saying that one system is better than another, but I would caution anyone to be careful about wishing for true democracy. It can be a terribly ugly overlord.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Corporations don't exist in a vacuum, they are owned and run by people. People who vote and contribute to political campaigns. Neither of those things would change in a pure democracy.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
"if you need a hospital or support for some physical limitation, you won't have to pay through your nose to get it, as this is seen as a basic human right"
Medical but not food as a basic right is amusing; same goes for breathing, water, sex, sleep, homeostasis, and excretion.
Only after you take care of these physiological needs do you get to the next tier of Maslow's hierarchy of needs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
where "health" is located... and that's considered a safety issue, after security of: body, employment, resources, morality, and the family, only just edging out security of property.
-- Terry
So where is the incentive to earn?
Your incentive to earn (which I'm sure is alive and well) doesn't trump the intended incentive to keep you from breaking laws.
It might however result in precedent freeing them of an obligation to press charges in similar situations in the future, saving untold amounts of future work.