[free-sklyarov] broaden the movement

[Jacob Gemmell]

I've always prefered the term "Copy Controlled Media".  It says excactly
what they are trying to do.

On 25 Jul 2001 15:26:43 -0400, Izel Sulam wrote:
> 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 repealed, but won't necessarily have any immediate effect on freeing 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 I think getting the DMCA repealed will take an unacceptably long 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 repealed.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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> free-sklyarov mailing list
> free-sklyarov at zork.net
> http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov