Replies

What constitutes "limited time" is something reasonable people can disagree on, which is why such judgments are left to a democratic body such as Congress.

The sanctity of property rights, however, is not up for argument.

Nobody owes you or anyone else a disc that can be viewed under Linux. Sure, maybe their failure to cater to your format reveals a lack of business savvy. But it doesn't mean they're obligated to give you what you want, or to let you infringe their rights just so you can watch it the way you want. Successfully viewing the contents of a plastic disc on X, Y or Z operating system is not some God-given right of yours. A copyright owner protecting his property, on the other hand, is such a natural right.

Call the entertainment industry stupid, call them dinosaurs, call them Luddites. That's all fair. But they're in no way immoral for protecting their property.

It's too bad so many people who call themselves "conservative" -- which presumably entails a fundamental respect for property rights -- lose their philosophical compass on this issue.

Not once did I say I steal their movies. I said I did not buy them.

How is it harming their rights to have a DVD viewable under Linux?

Another point. Almost all the ads for DVD come out at say OWN IT TODAY. If I own the DVD why can't I play it on what I wish as long as I do not share it with those who have not bought it?

The sanctity of property rights, however, is not up for argument.

Here we find the crux of the confusion. A copyright is not a property right of the sort one has over a physical object. It is, rather, a monopoly created by an affirmative act of the state. While the rights created by copyright law are as worthy of protection as other rights, there are critical points of difference which must be kept in mind.

But it doesn't mean they're obligated to give you what you want, or to let you infringe their rights just so you can watch it the way you want

Er, we are talking about someone watching a DVD he owns using a computer he owns. The people who sold the DVD exchanged all their rights concerning that copy for whatever cash was handed over -- there is nothing to infringe (provided that additional copies are not created and distributed, of course).

Successfully viewing the contents of a plastic disc on X, Y or Z operating system is not some God-given right of yours.

Success in any endeavor is never guaranteed. The right to pursue any endeavor, absent a showing that it entails a violation of others' rights, is guaranteed in a free society.

But they're in no way immoral for protecting their property.

Again, what they have is not "property", but a government monopoly on the duplication and distribution of certain information, and even this is not violated by the viewing of a lawfully obtained DVD on a lawfully obtained computer.