[free-sklyarov] broaden the movement

[Jacob Gemmell]

And being "controlled" doesn't?  Telling a person ther eBook is
crippled, and they will say "but I can still read it, what's the
problem?".  Tell them that it is controlled and they will say "What the
fsck did I pay for?".  I think that it is important to put this
arguement in terms of what the person owns and what they can do with it.

If you want a good real world anaolgy to give people, You can buy the
book in the bookstore and you can read the book in the bookstore.  You
just can't take the book with you when you go.

On 25 Jul 2001 15:13:07 -0500, Randy Rathbun wrote:
> The problem with "copy controlled media" is that it does not have a
> negative enough sound to it. A lesson can be learned from the abortion
> sides - one side calls themselves "pro life" but the other side refers to
> them as "anti choice". Talking about your enemy as "anti anything" sticks
> with most people, much like the word "communist".
> 
> The word "crippled" has much more of a punch to it. It is a word that
> scares a lot of people. 
> 
> *********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********
> 
> On 7/25/01 at 11:39 AM Jacob Gemmell wrote:
> 
> >I've always prefered the term "Copy Controlled Media".  It says excactly
> >what they are trying to do.
> >
> 
> -----
> If Bill Gates had a nickle for every time Windows crashed....
> Oh, wait, he does!
>              - posting on slashdot.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> free-sklyarov mailing list
> free-sklyarov at zork.net
> http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov