Germany Says Copying of DVDs, CDs Is Verboten 230
Billosaur writes "In what can only be seen as the opening salvo in an attempt to control what users can do with content, the German parliament has approved a controversial copyright law which will make it illegal to make copies of CDs and DVDs, even for personal use. The Bundesrat, the upper part of the German parliament, approved the legislation over the objections of consumer protection groups. The law is set to take effect in 2008, and covers CDs, DVDs, recordings from IPTV, and TV recordings." A few folks have noted that this story is incorrect. The original link seems to be down now anyway. Sorry.
Let businesses fight it out (Score:3, Interesting)
Democracy (Score:3, Interesting)
What does it mean to "own" media? (Score:5, Interesting)
Do we own the physical CD/DVD, but not what's on it?
If we own the right to use the media for personal use, then we should get additional copies of the physical media at no (or very little) charge if it becomes damaged.
But if we own that CD/DVD, then we should be able to make our own backups, at the least.
The content producers want it both ways. They say that we don't really "own" the content, just the right to access it, but what if you can't access that content? For example, no more working record players or tape decks in the world. Then we should get the updated version for free right? If we bought the right to access that content. If not, then they should just fuck off and let us acquire or reacquire content we already paid for.
Re:OK, so what's the *best* country? (Score:3, Interesting)
By that metric the US would be very permissive given the constitution. You can't just look at the letter of the law, at the end of the day the courts will have to interpret it, so it is really a matter of how things actually work out in practice. In principle US citizens have more legally recognised rights than we have in Sweden, in practice you have to consider how authorities actually operate. All kinds of things play into that, including things like who can afford a lawyer. Also, two laws with the exact same wording could have very different meanings in different countries, because things like "proven", "liable" and "forbidden" mean different things in different contexts.
Turn it around! (Score:3, Interesting)
Say something like, for example, that this will enable paedophiles to hide their files. Independent groups won't be able to verify their contents and police will need court orders (or whatever kind of official permission there is there to enable police to conduct searches) and that it will radically slow down any important investigations...
I don't know how, but I feel it's time to use their own manipulative weapons against them. Remember, it doesn't have to be logical or completely sane, just "emotional" enough to convince the impulsive masses.
Would something like this be possible?
Re:Not news. (Score:3, Interesting)
What? History kinda disagrees with you. Please point out the historical example of non authoritarian fascism.