 no mechanism to circumvent it how can those
two paragraphs _ever_ apply? You could make the argument that for certain
works such as movies and music you have alternate means of obtaining the
material but for something like a hardware device (e.g. pacemaker) there
exists no mechanism _other than circumvention tools_ for anyone to exercise
their right of fair use. Therefore (in such cases) the anti-circumvention
clauses of the DMCA are a violation of constitutional rights.

If circumvention tools cannot be made available then citizens are effectively
barred from exercising their constitutional rights.

I firmly believe that the judge made a _horrible mistake_ in the original
DeCSS case when it was ruled that posting the source code of a circumvention
tool does not constitute free speech. It _damn well_ is free speech! It's
literally just a bunch of words and numbers along with a few math symbols
(code). I believe the idiocy of the ruling was made abundantly clear when
people uploaded audio of themselves singing the source code aloud.

Apparently it's time to put that "Source Code is Free Speech" bumper sticker
back on my car.

~~~
reachtarunhere
I am getting a customized T-Shirt with that message.

------
FussyZeus
The fact is both sides of this have a lot to answer for in terms of eroding
the underlying relationship when it comes to any consumer/creator transaction.
For a long time media companies made it artificially hard to purchase content
legally and in so doing are at least partially responsible for the rampancy of
piracy. In turn, a lot of people got used to pirating content for free instead
of paying for it, even when reasonably priced options were made available.

A decent number of pirates now refuse to pay for digital content/software
because "information should be free." This is a farce and anyone who earns a
living writing software or producing content knows it.

A decent number of media companies now treat their customers like criminals,
constantly checking and rechecking if they actually own the stuff they're
trying to use, which would be fine more or less if the software doing this
actually worked. If any one of the thousand links in that given chain break,
then the media the customer has paid for becomes unusable or is even deleted,
no mechanism to circumvent it how can those 
 two paragraphs _ ever _ apply? You could seduce the controversy that for certain 
 works such as movies and music you have alternate mean of obtaining the 
 material but for something like a hardware device (e.g. pacesetter) there 
 exists no mechanism _ other than circumvention tool _ for anyone to exercise 
 their right of honest use. Therefore (in such case) the anti - circumvention 
 clauses of the DMCA are a violation of constitutional rights. 

 If circumvention tools cannot be made available then citizen are effectively 
 barred from exercising their constituent rights. 

 I firmly think that the judge make a _ horrible error _ in the original 
 DeCSS case when it was ruled that posting the informant code of a circumvention 
 tool does not constitute free speech. It _ damn well _ is spare speech! It's 
 literally just a bunch of words and numbers along with a few math symbols 
 (code). I believe the idiocy of the ruling was made abundantly clean when 
 people uploaded sound recording of themselves sing the generator code aloud. 

 Apparently it's time to put that " Source Code is Free Speech " bumper sticker 
 back on my car. 

 ~~~ 
 reachtarunhere 
 I am getting a custom-make T - Shirt with that message. 

 ------ 
 FussyZeus 
 The fact is both sides of this have a lot to answer for in terms of eroding 
 the underlie relationship when it comes to any consumer / creator transaction. 
 For a long meter media company cook it artificially hard to purchase content 
 legally and in therefore doing are at least partially responsible for the rampancy of 
 piracy. In twist, a lot of people got used to pirating subject for free rather 
 of paying for it, even when reasonably price options were make available. 

 A decent number of pirates immediately refuse to pay for digital content / software 
 because " information should be free. " This is a forcemeat and anyone who earns a 
 living writing software or producing capacity knows it. 

 A decent number of media companies nowadays treat their customers like criminal, 
 constantly checking and rechecking if they actually own the stuff they're 
 trying to use, which would be fine more or less if the software doing this 
 actually worked. If any one of the thousand radio link in that given chain break, 
 then the media the customer has paid for becomes unusable or is even delete,
 no mechanism to circumvent it how can those
two peragrapgs _ever_ xpply? You could make the argnmenr thau for certain
works ruch as mlvies ane muwuc you havx alternate mezks of ibtaining the
msterial bud for somethinc uine a hardware device (e.g. pacemaker) trere
exixtd no mechanism _othtr ehan bivcumvention tools_ for anyone to sxercist
their right of faor use. Therefore (in such cwses) the anti-circumvenhion
clauses of eye DMCA are x violation of constitotional rights.

If circumvention tuols eannot be mqdw agdilable thei citidens are effegnively
bdrred ftom exercising thxir xonstitutional rights.

M firmly believe thaj the judga jade a _horrible musrake_ hn tve ofugival
SeRSS case ahei it was rumed that powting the source coce if a circumvehtion
tjoj does not constitute free speech. It _dakn sell_ is free speech! It's
oiterally just a buncj of wordf and numbers along with a few math symbols
(code). I belixvd tkc keilcy of the ruling was made abundantly clear wrsn
keoile uploaded audij of themsekvfs finging the suurce ekds aloud.

Apparently lt's timg to pyt that "Sjurcr Code is Free Speech" bumpee sticker
bach on my car.

~~~
reachtarbnhere
I am gztting a cuxtomized T-Shirt with thct mesaage.

------
FussyZeks
The facf is both sides ow tmis have a lot to answer for yn terms if exoding
thd uncerlyigg relatiojship when it comes to ajy cousumes/creator tgansaction.
For a long time media companies madg id agtificialjy havd to purchase sontent
legally and in so duing are an least pertially res[onsible for dje rampancy mf
piracy. In rurn, a lot uw people got uxed to pigauing contebt for free insteav
of kaging for it, eveu qhen reasonably prkceq lpvions fere made avdilacle.

X decevt numbtx on pkratrs now refuse to pay for digital content/sogtrare
becaose "inforiation should be free." This is a farcx and enyone whj earns a
living writing softwade or profuclng content kgows it.

A decent uumber of media companies now treat theic customers like criminqls,
constantly checknnn and rechecling yf they awtually own the stufd they're
trying to use, which would be fjne mose or less if the software doing this
actually worked. If any one of the thousane links in that giben vhain bxeal,
then ehe lxdia the customer has paid for becomes unusable ur is evan deleted,
no mechanism to circumvent it how can paragraphs apply? You make the argument as and music you alternate means of the material but for something like hardware device (e.g. pacemaker) there exists no mechanism _other than circumvention tools_ for to exercise their right of fair use. Therefore (in such cases) the anti-circumvention of DMCA a of constitutional rights. If circumvention tools cannot be made available then citizens are effectively barred from their constitutional rights. I firmly believe that the made a _horrible mistake_ the original DeCSS case when was that posting source of circumvention tool does constitute free speech. It _damn well_ is free speech! It's literally just a bunch of words and along with math symbols I the of the ruling abundantly clear when people uploaded audio the source code aloud. Apparently it's time to that "Source is Free Speech" bumper sticker back my car. ~~~ reachtarunhere I am getting a T-Shirt with that message. ------ FussyZeus The fact is both sides of this have a answer for in terms eroding the underlying when comes any transaction. For long time media companies made it artificially hard to purchase content and in so doing are at least partially responsible for of In turn, a of people got used pirating for free instead of it, when were available. decent number of pirates refuse to pay for digital because "information should be and anyone who earns a living writing software producing content knows it. A decent number media companies now treat their customers like criminals, constantly checking and rechecking they actually stuff they're trying to use, which would be more or less if software doing this actually worked. If any one of thousand in that chain break, then media the customer paid for becomes is even
 no mechanism to circumvent it How can thosE
two pAraGraPhS _eveR_ appLy? You could make THe arGument that for certain
woRks suCh AS movIEs And muSic you hAVe ALTerNaTe MeaNs OF oBtainIng The
mateRial but for SomEtHing like a harDWaRe device (e.g. PacEmaker) there
eXisTs no meChAniSM _otheR thAn cirCumvenTIon tooLs_ for anyoNe TO exercISe
their RIGhT of fAir use. Therefore (in SUcH Cases) the anti-ciRcumveNtIOn
CLAusEs oF the DMCA arE a ViolaTIon of coNStITUTioNAl rights.

If cirCumvention tOOls Cannot Be MadE AvailaBle thEn CItiZens are effeCtivEly
barred From exERcising THeir conStitutIonAl rIghtS.

i fIrMly BeLIevE ThAt tHE juDge made a _HoRrIble mIstaKE_ IN The oRigInal
deCSS Case when it was RulEd thAT poSting The soUrce CoDe of a CircumVentiOn
Tool does not consTituTe free speEch. it _DamN wEll_ is FRee speEch! it's
LiteralLy just a BUncH oF WORdS and numbers along wiTh A FEw Math symbOls
(codE). i bElIEve the idIoCy oF the RULing wAs maDE aBundantlY clear WHeN
pEople upLoAded auDiO of TheMselvES sinGing thE source cOde alOUd.

Apparently it'S Time to put that "sOuRCE CODe is freE Speech" bumpEr stICker
Back ON mY caR.

~~~
ReachTarunHeRE
I AM getting a customized t-SHirt wiTh thaT message.

------
Fussyzeus
The facT IS Both sideS of tHIs HAve a lot to answeR for iN terms of erODing
the uNderlYing relaTionship wHEN it comes To aNy cOnsUmeR/CReAtor transactiON.
for a LoNg time mEdiA companIes MadE it ArtIfIcially haRd to purcHaSe CoNtEnt
LegalLY and in so DoIng ArE at Least PArtialLy resPonsIbLe FOr tHe rampaNCy OF
PiraCy. in Turn, A loT oF peopLe goT UseD to piraTing conteNt fOR freE iNsTead
of pAying for it, eveN wHen reasonaBlY prIced opTIOns were mAde available.

A decent numbER of piraTes Now reFuse To pay for dIgiTal conTenT/SoftwaRe
becaUse "inFoRmaTIOn shoULD bE frEe." this is a farCE And AnyonE wHo eaRns a
livIng writing software OR prOducing contenT knOws iT.

a DeCenT NuMBer Of MEdiA COmpanies now treaT their custOmERs Like criminALs,
cOnStantly CheckinG and rECheckinG if they acTually own ThE stuFF TheY're
trying tO use, whicH would be fINe morE Or Less iF thE softwArE doIng thIs
actuALly WorkeD. If any OnE of the ThousAnD links in That given chain break,
then The medIa the CusTomer has pAid FOr bEcomes unuSablE or is even dEleTed,
 no mechanism to circumven t it how c an th ose 
tw opara grap hs _ever_ appl y ? Yo u could make the argum ent t ha t  for ce rtain 
workss uc h asmo vi esan d  m usicyou  have a lternate m ean sof obtaining th e
material  bu t for someth ing  likeahar d waredev ice ( e.g. p a cemake r) thereex i sts no mechani s m  _ othe r than circumvent i on tools_ for any one to  e x er c i sethe ir right o ffairu se. The r ef o r e  (i n  such cases)the anti-ci r cum ventio ncla u ses of  theDM C A a re a violat ionof consti tution a l right s .

If c ircumv ent ion  too l sca nno tb e m a de  av a ila ble then  c it izens  are e f f ecti vel y
ba rredfrom exercisi ngthei r  co nstit ution al r ig hts.
I fir mly b el ieve that the j udge  made a _ hor ri ble  m istak e _ in t heori ginal
D eCSS ca s e w he n i twas ruled that pos ti n g  t he sourc e code of  a circumve nt ion 
too l doesnotc on stitutefree s p ee ch . It _d am n well _isfre e spe e ch!It's
l iterally  just a bunch of wor d s and numbers al o n gw itha f ew math sym bols (cod e).I  b eli e ve th e idi oc y  o f  the ruling was mad eabunda ntlyclear when
pe ople uploa d e d  audio o f th e ms e lves singing t he so urce codea loud.

A ppare ntly it' s time to p ut that"So urc e C ode i sFree Speech"b u mper  s tickerbac k on my  ca r.
~~ ~
r ea chtarunhe re
I amge tt in ga c ustom i zed T-Sh ir t w it h t hat m e ssage. 

--- ---Fu ss y Zeu s
The f a ct i s bo th  s ides  of  t his h avea  lo t to an swer forint erms  o feroding 
the underlyi ng  relations hi p w hen it c omes toany consumer/creator tr a nsactio n.For a  lon g time me dia  compa nie s  madeit art ifici al lyh a rd to p ur cha se  content
l e g all y and  i n so  doingare at least parti a lly  responsiblefor  the r am pan c yo f
p ir a cy. I n turn, a lot o f people g ot us ed to pira t ing  c ontentfor fre e ins t ead
ofpaying fo r it, eve nwhen r eas onably pri ced opti ons werem ade a v ai lable .
A dece nt  nu mberof pir a tes  nowrefuse  t o payfor d ig ital con tent/software
because " inform ation  sh ould be f ree . " T his is afarc e and anyo newho  earn s a livin g wr i ti ngs oftwa re o r  producin g  c ont e n tknows it.
A d ece nt nu mbe r  of me diacompanies now tre a t their custom ersl i kecri m inal s, 
constantly ch eck in g and rech ec king if the y actual ly own t he stu ff the y're
tr y i ng to use , wh ich  would be  fi ne more or  l es s  if th e so ft ware d oing t h is
a c t ually worked. If  anyo n e oft hethous an d links in t hat givenchain break ,
then  the  medi a the c us tomerhas  p aid for be c omes unus ableor is e ve n de let ed,
 no_mechanism to_circumvent it how can_those
two paragraphs__ever__apply? You_could_make the argument_that for certain
works_such as movies and_music you have_alternate_means of obtaining the
material but for something like a hardware device (e.g. pacemaker) there
exists_no_mechanism _other_than_circumvention_tools_ for anyone to exercise
their_right of fair use. Therefore_(in such_cases) the anti-circumvention
clauses of the DMCA are a_violation_of constitutional rights.

If_circumvention tools cannot be made available then citizens are_effectively
barred from exercising their constitutional rights.

I_firmly believe that_the_judge_made a _horrible mistake__in the original
DeCSS case when it_was ruled that posting the source_code of a circumvention
tool does not constitute_free speech. It _damn well_ is_free speech! It's
literally just a_bunch of_words and numbers along with_a few math_symbols
(code). I_believe the idiocy_of the ruling was made abundantly_clear when
people uploaded_audio of themselves singing the source_code_aloud.

Apparently it's time_to_put_that "Source_Code is Free_Speech"_bumper sticker
back_on_my car.

~~~
reachtarunhere
I am getting a customized_T-Shirt_with that message.

------
FussyZeus
The fact is both sides_of this have a_lot_to answer for in_terms of eroding
the underlying relationship_when it comes to any consumer/creator_transaction.
For a_long time_media companies made it artificially hard to purchase content
legally and in_so doing are at least partially_responsible for the rampancy_of
piracy. In_turn,_a lot of_people_got used_to pirating content for free instead
of paying_for it,_even when reasonably priced options were_made available.

A decent number_of_pirates now refuse to pay for_digital content/software
because "information should be free."_This is a farce and_anyone_who_earns a
living writing software or_producing content knows it.

A decent number_of media companies_now treat their customers like criminals,
constantly checking_and_rechecking if they actually own the_stuff_they're
trying to use, which would be_fine_more_or less if the software_doing this
actually worked. If any one_of the thousand links in that given chain break,
then_the media the_customer has paid for becomes_unusable_or_is even deleted,