[FoRK] Re: Kindle first impressions

[Luis Villa]

On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 7:41 PM, Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org> wrote:
>
>  On May 5, 2008, at 4:28 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Ah, so you have the version of iTunes where you can rip a DVD to your
> > iPod, just like you can rip a CD? Oh, wait, what, that doesn't exist,
> > you say? Doesn't exist because Apple doesn't want to violate the DMCA?
> >
>
>  Do you need Apple to do this?  I wouldn't, on the occasion when I might
> feel the need to accomplish this sort of thing...
>
> > Huh, funny that. So you can do it... just without the polish,
> > convenience, and commercial investment you (correctly) praise
> > elsewhere in this thread.
> >
>
>  True, and it's usually not worth the effort to me.  The point is, the
> *possibility* is there.  It's up to me to pay the inconvenience cost...  and
> over time, convenience will beat inconvenience, flexibility wins in the long
> run, the market works, business models are destroyed, those with vested
> interests curse and everyone else is happy.  Just doesn't happen as quickly
> as we'd like, usually...

But that wasn't your claim. Your claim was that law on paper didn't
change anything. I'm point out that law, on paper, has brutally
changed the game already. We'd have an online video market almost
exactly as mature as the online music market (multiple providers,
multiple levels of quality, etc.) *if the law weren't there.* Instead,
we've all got to hack it together by hand, which is stupid and
pathetic.

> > To be slightly less snarky, I get your point that the DMCA doesn't
> > stop *you*, but it does stop lots of people (either because of their
> > moral concerns
> >
>
>  Then it's not the DMCA stopping them, is it?

Yes, it is. I realize that in your Randian world, people only pay
attention to their inner moral compasses, but out here in the real
world, there are people who feel it is morally wrong to violate the
law, whatever the law may be. In other words, they don't care about
the artist- they care about the DMCA. (You really think herds of
people follow the speed limit, or avoid pot, because they are afraid
or pot or driving 75? No, they follow them because they dislike
breaking the law.)

> > or because it reduces their access to
> > knowledge/tools), certainly stops virtually all corporations,
> >
>
>  Corporations aren't people, despite the fiction...

Corporations create tools that (gasp) are used by people.

> > and even
> > in cases where lots of people aren't stopped (pot, speed limits, mp3s)
> > it helps create cynicism and disregard for law, which admittedly is a
> > sort of abstract problem, but I think helps reduce people's motivation
> > to actually *fix* broken laws.
> >
>
>  Or it motivates people to break laws en-masse, forcing the kind of standoff
> we see today w/ the RIAA.  You want to bet on the outcome of that one?

I'd prefer to have reached the same outcome without turning an entire
generation into complete cynics about the rule of law first.

Luis