I also have a utility that disables the copy protection stuff (Starforce), as well as a no-DVD executable.

At any rate, I make the same argument about software that I make about guns. There are no dangerous pieces of software, there are dangerous PEOPLE. A great example of this are disc imaging programs, which allow users to make an image of a DVD or CD, store it on a local hard drive, and then mount this image as a virtual drive in windows. This keeps the user from constantly having to switch game discs back and forth out of their PC, as well as providing a back-up should the too-fragile media become damaged. Ubisoft, a major publisher of PC games, uses a copy protection scheme that WILL NOT ALLOW YOUR GAME TO WORK if this sort of program is installed on your computer.

I’m an avid buyer of PC Games, spending pretty close to 4-500 dollars per year on games and peripherals. I advocate playing and try to get others involved in my hobby. I am the poster-child for a grass roots marketing campaign, but when I find a utility that makes it easier to enjoy my hobby, I am pissed on by a company that seeks to control my experience on my computer. This is inexcusable…and also why I have only ONE Ubisoft game in my PC game collection (and I bought that used at EB Games).

I do not actually play games on Ubuntu, but I do everything else. I run my primary Web browser there; I do most of my php work on this site there; I run all of my IM packages except for Xfire there; I use Gimp instead of Photoshop, and I use open office as my spreadsheet and word processor. It is a great alternative. I have nearly 20 GB of DRM-free MP3s on that machine that were either legitimately purchased or ripped from my own collection of CDs. It’s great.

As soon as I finished reading your op-ed, I found myself reading this copyright story on a local news website. The recording industry is suing a mother for her son’s illegal music downloads.

$750.00 per song illegally downloaded. Why am I angry about this? Mainly because of what clsheppard had stated ‘The DRM features in her media players prevent her (the honest mother) from doing so. Meanwhile, any semi-determined thief can circumvent DRM for illegitimate reasons. DRM deters very little crime while it penalizes honest people.’

While I’m not trying to give credibility to a stupid teenager who wanted the latest in pop-culture at his mother’s expense, I’m angry at the recording industry for punishing the one demographic that has put them in their cushy leather chairs to begin with instead of going after the companies or individuals that are promoting this type of behavior.

What I think everyone is missing here and has been the subject of many arguments; is that the recording and movie industry are not protecting the writers or producers or artists by instituting the DRM or any copy-right protection service. What they are successfully maintaining is that every dollar they can make, recoup and recover from the intial sell and prosecution of those like the honest mother, continues to line their pockets for years to come.

So, while 5-10 years ago when I could walk into my neighborhood record/tape/cd store and purchase a hot new single for .99 cents, make a mixed tape and send it to a best friend or lover to share my tastes, I now have rules as to how I can use the single I just purchased on a convenient website. While there are ways to circumvent the proprietary formatting that many of these companies are using, it’s painstaking and should be unnecessary. I thought when I was handing over my .99 cents for ‘Ice Ice Baby’, that I was purchasing that content for me, and to use it however I saw fit on a personal level. I’m not creating massive amounts of the song, or broadcasting it in a public place. If anything I agree with Peter, that my ‘share’ will prompt ‘word-of-mouth’ sydrome. The person will like what they hear and go out and support that artist in some way. Either by attending a concert or buying a cd.

I’m waiting for the day when I go grocery shopping and on every package of celery, it tells me that I’m not able to cook it for anyone else but myself and that should I be found out, it will be 750.00 per piece of stalk.

Sounds ridiculous? Yeah. I thought so, but soup kitchens in the future are F’ed.

Intellectual property is very important to me. I make a living writing the stuff, so I have a good motive to protect it. Yet my opinion in the matter lines up with what you’ve written.

Intellectual property is a very new legal construct. It was made up just like the concept of an “artificial person”. It was first mentioned in Frace courts in the 1840s. It wasn’t commonly until 1967. Our courts are still learning how intellectual property fits into our legal system. Should all laws that mention “property” be extended to cover “intellectual property”? In disputes, should one be given preference over another?

Currently our courts give preference to artificial property. Consider that honest mother that wants to make a VHS copy of a fragile Barney DVD to help protect her investment from clumsy, dirty paws. The DRM features in her media players prevent her from doing so. Meanwhile, any semi-determined thief can circumvent DRM for illegitimate reasons. DRM deters very little crime while it penalizes honest people.

On a seperate note: I use Ubuntu at work. It is pretty, indeed. Do you play games on it?