evil bits
Tuesday, July 11th, 2006I’m actually *really* surprised that nobody on Utah Open Source Planet has blogged about the latest story in the Slashdot headlines, about the “naughty bits” decision. It just hit the front page for the second time (once an original post, now as a Backslash article). What is everyone’s take on it? I’m curious.
Now, while I’m too lazy to read court documents (much less understand them), I’m not really going to say much about anything other than where I stand on the principles. I agree with one commentor, that the ruling extends beyond just a ‘Cleanflix’ type business model, and it instead extends into the realm of what copyright owners can do with the content that you legally purchased (licensed, rent-to-own, whatever).
As far as I understand it, this is how the “edited movies” business model works — it removes itself from the crosshair because the movie is already owned by the customer. They just make a copy of that for them and digitally remove some parts for them. That seems perfectly reasonable to me. I’m writing my own DVD ripping script right now which does something slightly different — it doesn’t alter the movie itself, but it does completely ignore the commercials, ads, menus, and almost all the audio tracks. Aren’t I also altering the original copyright holder’s vision of duplication?
Anyway, it comes as no shock to me that evil men have it in their interests to destroy our liberty, and it certainly comes as even less as a surprise that most of Slashdot approves of the ruling because it somehow strikes a blow to morality and Christianity. What they fail to realize, of course, is that all liberty such as civil rights stem from the same root of morality. You can’t defend evil (the right for artists to not let an audience to choose their level of filtering) and good (allow fair use) at the same time.
The whole thing disgusts me, personally.
