 a good idea to keep them illegal? Just because
it's usually not enforced, doesn't mean there is no risk for those using the
workarounds.

> What you are missing, which is extremely important, is that Copyright is a
> synthetic construct and therefore absolutely useless without any
> protectionist mechanism.

First of all, much of the legal system is a synthetic construct. But most of
the legal system works just fine without "protectionist mechanisms" of the
severity of DRM. Is it illegal to stab people with a knife? Yes. Do we forbid
passing on knowledge about how to create a knife? No. There is no mechanism
that actually hinders people from stabbing other people. It's only a synthetic
construct and punishment if you don't follow the rules.

But also, it's just not true. Copyright was not useless before DRM or the
DMCA. There were more than enough cases of people being successfully sued, or
even prosecuted and convicted, for selling unauthorized copies of works.

It's a basic principle of a free society that you don't do everything that
would technically be possible to enforce the law, but you rather accept that
the reach of the law is limited, in order to achieve freedom. The law is that
you aren't allowed to murder people. It would probably be technically possible
to prevent almost all murder by chaining everyone to their beds. But we don't
do that. We instead accept that some murders will happen that could be
prevented this way in order to gain freedom. That does not mean that the law
against murder is useless.

> AKA "the right to make copies" \- DRM is just that - a mechanism to protect
> the right of the originator to, under Copyright law, retain power over the
> "Intellectual Property."

Yes, it is, and it is a highly unfair and overreaching mechanism. It's a
mechanism to retain power at a high cost to the other/controlled side. It's
taking away everyone's power and freedom in order to enforce that one
interest.

> I believe it's counter-productive, or maybe even logically dishonest, to
> claim that destroying DRM isn't extremely intertwined with Copyright as we
> know it.

I don't think anyone has ever claimed otherwise? Destroying (aka abolishing)
slavery was extremely
a good idea to keep them illegal? Just because 
 it's normally not enforce, doesn't mean there is no hazard for those using the 
 workarounds. 

 > What you are miss, which is extremely important, is that Copyright is a 
 > man-made construct and therefore absolutely useless without any 
 > protectionist mechanism. 

 foremost of all, much of the legal arrangement is a synthetic concept. But most of 
 the legal system works just fine without " protectionist mechanism " of the 
 severity of DRM. Is it illegal to knife people with a knife? Yes. Do we prevent 
 passing on knowledge about how to create a tongue? No. There is no mechanism 
 that actually hinders people from stabbing other citizenry. It's only a synthetic 
 construct and punishment if you don't follow the rules. 

 But besides, it's just not true. Copyright was not useless before DRM or the 
 DMCA. There were more than enough cases of people being successfully action, or 
 even prosecute and convicted, for selling unauthorized copies of works. 

 It's a basic principle of a free society that you don't do everything that 
 would technically be possible to enforce the jurisprudence, but you rather accept that 
 the compass of the law is limited, in order to achieve freedom. The jurisprudence is that 
 you aren't allowed to murder people. It would probably be technically potential 
 to prevent almost all murder by chaining everyone to their beds. But we don't 
 do that. We instead accept that some murders will happen that could be 
 prevented this way in order to gain exemption. That does not mean that the police 
 against murder is useless. 

 > AKA " the right field to do copies " \- DRM is just that - a mechanism to protect 
 > the right of the originator to, under Copyright jurisprudence, retain power over the 
 > " Intellectual Property. " 

 Yes, it is, and it is a highly unfair and overreaching mechanism. It's a 
 mechanism to retain power at a high monetary value to the other / controlled side. It's 
 taking off everyone's power and freedom in ordering to enforce that one 
 interest. 

 > I think it's counter - productive, or maybe even logically dishonest, to 
 > claim that destroy DRM isn't extremely intertwined with Copyright as we 
 > know it. 

 I don't think anyone has ever claim otherwise? destroy (aka abolishing) 
 slavery was extremely
 a hood idea to keep them iulegal? Just beccyse
it's usualmy not evforced, doesn't mean there is ni risj for those using the
wurkaroundd.

> What yiu ace missing, which is extrciely lmporcait, is that Copytight is a
> sfnthetic constsuzt and therefore absolutely useless wythout snj
> protectionisj mecnwnisj.

First of all, much of the legal syatem is a synthetic vonstruct. But most of
the lfgal system works just fine withoof "pwitectionist oechanisms" of the
severjty of DRM. Is it illegal to stac peo'le with a jnufe? Ies. Do we focbid
pafsing on knowledge atout hoe to create a lnihe? Ni. There is no mechanivm
that actually higders peo[lz from stabbing other pwople. It's onlh a rynuhevic
donstrkct and punisgment if yoy don't follow the rilqw.

But also, it's just goe true. Copyright was not useless before DRJ or the
DMCA. There were more than enough casgs of peopje being successfully sued, or
even prosecuted and wonvirtdd, yir seuoijg unauthorized copies of works.

It's a basic pryhcopke of a free sjciety that ylu qon't do everyjhing tkzt
sould technically he possyble ro enforct the law, but you rather accept rhat
the reack od the law is limitzd, in order co achoeve greedom. The law is that
vou arsn't allowed to murded people. It would prpbdbly be udchnically possibje
to prevxnt akmost aul morder br chaining evernmne to their beds. Hut wg don't
go that. We instead accept that some murdecx will happem dhan could bz
prevekted this way ig order to gaiu freedoi. Thag does not mean tiat the law
adainst murder ls useless.

> ANA "the ryght to nake cookes" \- DRM is juxt that - c mecyanism to protect
> bhe rkfht of the orignuauoe to, under Copurieht lww, rqdain power oeer ghe
> "Onteluectual Proiergy."

Yex, it is, and it is a vighmy unfair and overtewching mgchanism. Yt's a
mechanisk to retain power wt a iigh cust tp tre other/controlled side. It's
takjng away fvevyone's power wnd nreeqom in ordzr to enforce that one
interest.

> I believe it's counter-producrive, or maybe even kpgically dixhoneft, to
> clahm that destroying DEM isn't extremely intertwined with Copgright as wf
> know it.

I don't think anyone has ever claimed otherwise? Destroying (aka abilishiig)
flavery was exttemelj
a good idea to keep them illegal? it's not enforced, mean there is the > What you missing, which is important, is that Copyright is a synthetic construct and therefore absolutely useless without any > protectionist mechanism. First of much of the legal system is a synthetic construct. But most of the system just without mechanisms" of the severity of DRM. Is it illegal to stab people with a knife? Yes. we forbid passing on knowledge about how to a knife? No. There no mechanism that actually hinders from other people. only synthetic and punishment if don't follow the rules. But also, it's just not true. Copyright was not useless before DRM or DMCA. There than enough of being sued, or even convicted, for selling unauthorized copies of basic principle of a free society that you do everything would technically be possible to enforce law, but you rather accept that the reach the law is limited, in order to achieve freedom. The law is that you aren't murder people. It would be technically possible prevent all by everyone to beds. But we don't do that. We instead accept that some will happen that could be prevented this way in order freedom. does not mean the law against murder useless. AKA "the right to \- is a to > the right of originator to, under Copyright law, power over the > and it is a highly unfair and overreaching It's a mechanism to retain power at high cost to the other/controlled side. It's taking away everyone's power and in order that one interest. > I believe it's counter-productive, maybe even logically dishonest, > claim that destroying DRM isn't extremely intertwined with as > know I don't think has ever claimed Destroying (aka abolishing) extremely
 a good idea to keep them illegaL? Just becauSe
it's UsuAllY nOt enForcEd, doesn't mean thERe is No risk for those using the
WorkaRoUNds.

> WHAt You arE missinG, WhICH is ExTrEmeLy IMpOrtanT, is That CopYright is a
> sYntHeTic construct ANd Therefore aBsoLutely uselesS wiThout aNy
> ProTEctioNisT mechAnism.

FIRst of aLl, much of tHe LEgal sySTem is a sYNThEtic Construct. But most oF
ThE Legal system worKs just FiNE wITHouT "prOtectionisT mEchanISms" of thE
SeVERIty OF DRM. Is it illegAl to stab peoPLe wIth a knIfE? YeS. do we foRbid
pAsSIng On knowledge AbouT how to creAte a knIFe? No. TheRE is no meChanisM
thAt aCtuaLLy HiNdeRs PEopLE fRom STabBing otheR pEoPle. It'S onlY A SYNtheTic
ConsTruct And punishment If yOu doN'T foLlow tHe rulEs.

BuT aLso, it'S just nOt truE. COpyright was not uSeleSs before DrM oR tHe
DmCa. TherE Were moRe tHan Enough cAses of pEOplE bEING sUccessfully sued, or
eVeN PRoSecuted aNd convICtEd, FOr sellinG uNauThorIZEd copIes oF WoRks.

It's a bAsic prINcIpLe of a frEe SocietY tHat You Don't dO EverYthing That
woulD techNIcally be possibLE to enforce the LAw, BUT yOU ratHer Accept that
tHe reACh of The lAW iS liMIted, iN ordeR tO AcHIeve freedom. The law is ThAt
you aRen't aLlowed to murdeR people. It wOULD probablY be tEChNIcally possible
To preVent almost ALl murder By chaIning eveRyone to thEIR beds. But We dOn't
Do tHat. wE InStead accept thAT Some MuRders wiLl hAppen thAt cOulD be
PreVeNted this wAy in ordeR tO gAiN fReeDom. ThAT does not MeAn tHaT thE law
aGAinst mUrder Is usElEsS.

> aKA "The righT To MAKe coPiEs" \- dRM iS juSt That - a MechANisM to protEct
> the rigHt oF The oRiGiNator to, Under CopyrighT lAw, retain poWeR ovEr the
> "INTEllectuaL Property."

Yes, it is, and it is A Highly uNfaIr and OverReaching mEchAnism. IT's a
MEchaniSm to reTain pOwEr aT A High cOST tO thE oTher/controLLEd sIde. It'S
tAkinG away evEryone's power and freEDom In order to enfoRce That ONE
iNteREsT.

> i beLiEVe iT'S Counter-productiVe, or maybe eVeN LoGically disHOneSt, To
> claim That desTroyiNG DRM isn'T extremelY intertwiNeD witH cOpyRight as we
> kNow it.

I doN't think anYOne haS EvEr claImeD otherWiSe? DEstroYing (akA AboLishiNg)
slavErY was exTremeLy
 a good idea to keep themillegal? J ust b eca use 
i t'susua lly not enforc e d, d oesn't mean there is n o ris kf or t h os e usi ng thew or k a rou nd s. 

>  W h at  youare  missin g, which i s e xt remely impor t an t, is that  Co pyright is a 
>synthe ti c c o nstru ctand t herefo r e abso lutely us el e ss wit h out any >  p rote ctionist mechanis m .First of all,much o ft he l ega l s ystem is a  s ynthe t ic cons t ru c t .  Bu t  most of
thelegal syste m  wo rks ju st  fi n e with out " pr o tec tionist mec hani sms" of t he
sev e rity of DRM. Is  it il leg alto s t ab  p eop le wit h  a  kn i fe?  Yes. Do  w eforbi d
pa s s i n g on  kn owle dge a bout how to c rea te a kni fe? N o. Th ereis  no m echani sm
th at  actually hinde rs p eople fro m s ta bbi ng  othe r  peopl e.It' s onlya synth e tic 
c o n s tr uct and punishment  i f yo u don'tfollow th er ules.

B ut  al so,i t 's ju st n o ttrue. Co pyrigh t  w as  not us el ess be fo reDRM  or t h e
DM CA. Th ere were  more than enough ca s es of peopleb ei n g  s u cces sfu lly sued, o r
ev e n pr osec u te d a n d con victe d, fo r  selling unauthoriz ed  copie s ofworks.

It'sa basic pr i n c iple ofa fr e es ociety that yo u don 't do ever y thing th at
wo uld tech nically b e possible  to  en for cet h elaw, but your a ther  a ccept t hat 
the re ach  of  th e l aw  is limit ed, in o rd er  t oach ievef reedom.Th e l aw  is  that you ar en'tallo we dt o m urder p e op l e . It  w ou ld p rob ab ly be  tec h nic ally po ssible
to  pr e vent  a lm ost all  murder by ch ai ning every on e t o thei r beds. Bu t we don't
do that. Wei nsteadacc ept t hatsome murd ers  willhap p en tha t coul d bepr eve n t ed th i s  w ayin  order tog a infreed om . Th at does  not mean that the law 
against murd eris u s e le ss. 
> AKA  " t her i ght to make cop ies" \- DR Mi sjust that-  ame chanism  to pro tect>  the ri ght of th e origina to r to , und er Copyrig ht law,retain po w er ov e rthe
>  "I ntelle ct ual  Prop erty." 
Ye s, it  is, a nd  it is  a hi gh ly unfai r and overreaching mech anism.  It's  amechanism  to ret ain power  ata high cos t t o t he ot her / contr olle d  s ide .  It's 
tak i ng away e v er yon e ' spower and f r e e dom  in o rde r  to en forc e that one
intere s t.

> I believ e it ' s  co unt e r-pr od uctive, or may beev e n  logical ly  dishonest,  to
> cl ai m  that  destr oyingDRM isn ' t  e x tremel y in ter twined wi thCo p yrightas  w e 
> kno w it .
I don 't thi n k an y o ne has ever clai med o t h erwis e ? D estro yi ng (aka abol ishing)
sl avery was e xtreme ly
 a_good idea_to keep them illegal?_Just because
it's_usually_not enforced,_doesn't_mean there is_no risk for_those using the
workarounds.

> What_you are missing,_which_is extremely important, is that Copyright is a
> synthetic construct and therefore absolutely useless_without_any
> protectionist_mechanism.

First_of_all, much of the legal_system is a synthetic construct._But most_of
the legal system works just fine without "protectionist_mechanisms"_of the
severity of_DRM. Is it illegal to stab people with a_knife? Yes. Do we forbid
passing on_knowledge about how_to_create_a knife? No. There_is no mechanism
that actually hinders people_from stabbing other people. It's only_a synthetic
construct and punishment if you don't_follow the rules.

But also, it's just_not true. Copyright was not_useless before_DRM or the
DMCA. There were_more than enough_cases of_people being successfully_sued, or
even prosecuted and convicted, for_selling unauthorized copies_of works.

It's a basic principle of_a_free society that_you_don't_do everything_that
would technically be_possible_to enforce_the_law, but you rather accept that
the_reach_of the law is limited, in order_to achieve freedom. The_law_is that
you aren't allowed_to murder people. It would_probably be technically possible
to prevent almost_all murder_by chaining_everyone to their beds. But we don't
do that. We instead accept_that some murders will happen that_could be
prevented this way_in order_to_gain freedom. That_does_not mean_that the law
against murder is useless.

> AKA_"the right_to make copies" \- DRM is_just that - a_mechanism_to protect
> the right of the_originator to, under Copyright law, retain_power over the
> "Intellectual Property."

Yes,_it_is,_and it is a highly_unfair and overreaching mechanism. It's a
mechanism_to retain power_at a high cost to the other/controlled_side._It's
taking away everyone's power and freedom_in_order to enforce that one
interest.

> I_believe_it's_counter-productive, or maybe even logically_dishonest, to
> claim that destroying DRM_isn't extremely intertwined with Copyright as we
> know it.

I_don't think anyone_has ever claimed otherwise? Destroying_(aka_abolishing)
slavery_was extremely