Yes; it's called the DMCA's anti-copyright circumvention. You seem to be saying such laws and lobbying is only there to prevent people from being able to uploa

Yes; it's called the DMCA's anti-copyright circumvention. You seem to be saying such laws and lobbying is only there to prevent people from being able to upload pirated DVDs, but the obvious problem there is such actions -are already illegal-. Their incentive may be to prevent piracy, but their actions are very clearly to prevent -anyone- from ripping their legally purchased media. They will not -prosecute- an individual who never uploaded something, no, but they have -no- problem with making it illegal and going after anyone who would produce the tools to allow it to happen. Their actions, and the rationales they use to justify it, are the problem, not their incentives. I am in complete -agreement- with their incentives; file sharing is certainly a threat to their business model, and they either need to change business model or try and stamp it out. But in trying to stamp it out they are effectively also trying to stamp out things that I should be able to do (and legally may be both allowed to do, and not allowed to do; I'm legally allowed to rip my content, but not legally allowed to circumvent DRM to do it). But we're digressing. My point was, and still is, simply that there is no analogy being made by the article, nor Sunde; the analogy (or whatever you want to call it; it's just semantics) is being made by the copyright industry. Agreed, in mocking it they're straining it a bit, but the point is that they're mocking a terrible argument that the copyright industry has made to make their case in both courts of law and courts of public opinion. Same as the "You Wouldn't Download A Car!" meme was made to mock their "You Wouldn't Steal A Car!" ad campaign.