[free-sklyarov] broaden the movement

[Izel Sulam]

proclus at iname.com proclus at iname.com wrote:

>Let's boycott all media with copy protection that counters fair use. 
>This would include eBooks, and DVD movies, as well as some future plans
>from Microsoft, and I'm sure that the people here could think of more
>examples.
	 
I have two things to say about this idea.

First, it's a good idea, but not yet at the correct location in our 
priority queue. I think most of us would agree that our priority queue 
should consist of first Freeing Dmitry, then repealing the DMCA. I think 
boycotting all copy protected media is a valid step in getting the DMCA 
repealed, but won't necessarily have any immediate effect on freeing 
Dmitry. I think getting the DMCA repealed will take an unacceptably long 
time, given the resources of our opposition, and is such a roundabout way 
of freeing Dmitry, that our initial protests should focus on Mueller, 
Ashcroft, the DoJ, etc.

Let's first make sure that Dmitry goes Free. We can then tackle our fucked 
up legislation.

With that said, this is definitely a valid step in getting the DMCA 
repealed. However, I would like you to watch out for something. You use 
(without realizing) the corporately sancioned term used to refer to 
cryptographically encapsulated products - namely "copy protected media". 
This is a dangerous Jedi mind trick. Every time you say "copy protected 
media", sheeple will think of the word "protection" and all the warm and 
fuzzy associations that immediately follow the word "protection". Sheeple 
will think of the friendly neighborhood cops, the locks on their doors, the 
Winchester in their shed. The word "protection" is associated with all of 
these concepts. Sheeple will have mistaken impressions about this 
"protected media" actually watching out for their welfare - keeping away 
pesky viruses and Trojans, for example. It's protected, just like a condom, 
right? It's good for my children, isn't it? It's protected after all? Don't 
laugh, words are powerful weapons, especially when used on ignorant, 
impressionable people, and in the wrong hands, words can have these kinds 
of undesirable effects.

I suggest that we pick a counter-term to refer to cryptographically 
encapsulated products that prevent fair use. I suggest "crippled media". It 
is sufficiently unpleasant and politically incorrect, that if we say it 
often enough and loudly enough, Microsoft and Adobe and whoever else will 
do everything in their power to ensure that their product lineup does not 
include "crippled media" and products that produce or play "crippled 
media". Try saying it. Just pronouncing the phrase makes one squirm. There 
are so many unpleasant associations involved, it's not even funny. I find 
it quite delightful myself.

And, of course, it's a very honest term. "Copy protected media" doesn't 
protect anyone or anything (except, possibly, corporate profits). "Crippled 
media" however, cripples fair use rights, which is the main motivation 
behind cryptographic encapsulation. I find it much more accurate and 
descriptive.

If we make "crippled media" a part of mainstream lexicon, then I strongly 
believe that all kinds of desirable consequences will follow.

Comments, suggestions welcome.
- izel