MESSAGE
| DATE | 2004-07-13 |
| FROM | Mike Richardson - NYLXS PRESIDENT
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [hangout] FW:Infoworld: Is Content Control Constitutional? (fwd)
|
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 15:25:46 -0400
From: Michael Richardson
To: 'Mike Richardson - NYLXS PRESIDENT'
Subject: FW: Infoworld: Is Content Control Constitutional?
--
"In The Business World
An Executive Knows Something About Everything,
A Technician Knows Everything About Something,
And the Switchboard Operator Knows Everything."
No one person is smarter than their team!
>
> > http://weblog.infoworld.com/foster/2004/07/13.html#a127
>
>
> THE GRIPE LINE WEBLOG
>
> by Ed Foster
> Tuesday, July 13, 2004
>
>
> Is Copy Protection Constitutional?
>
>
> It's not unusual for my readers to have some strong things to say about
> DRM,
> product activation and the like. But one reaction to my column last week
> on
> Roxio's product activation was particularly remarkable, the more so
> because
> it came from the president of a software company.
>
> "We are a small company which does a lot of customized software, so
> there is
> a difference there between us and the Microsofts, et. al. of the world,"
> the
> reader wrote. "However, our philosophies cannot be too dissimilar, since
> we
> all make our money off our software."
>
> "All that said, I view copy protection as an absolute immoral, illegal,
> and
> unconstitutional intrusion of individual rights," the reader wrote. "I
> have
> gotten fed up with companies and people in general treating everyone
> like a
> criminal until they prove otherwise. I will not allow anyone at my
> company
> to even suggest a copy protection scheme, because I believe in going
> after
> the offenders, and not everyone else."
>
> Unconstitutional intrusion? "Absolutely" the reader wrote, citing the
> Fourth
> Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. "It
> is my
> belief that these activation schemes are essentially a search as it
> keeps
> track of the hardware in the system. It may be general information, but
> still nonetheless a search. Secondly, when the software is disabled as a
> result of a hardware change, again, this is a search, but also a
> seizure. I
> understand all too well that software is licensed, and title and
> copyright
> is retained with the authoring entity; however, the price paid for the
> software is essentially a rental price. How often in this country can a
> person be thrown out of their residence without the owner going to court
> first? It just doesn't happen."
>
> The reader also cited the Fifth Amendment and its provision that no
> person
> should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of
> law.
> "Disabling software when the person has paid the entity's price for it
> constitutes the person being deprived of liberty and property without
> due
> process," he wrote. "I have written and continue to write Senators,
> Congressmen, etc. to try to get some action on this, but the issue is
> just
> simply not big enough or hot enough to get Congress to move on."
>
> Them's fighting words, I do believe. Write me at Foster-at-gripe2ed.com and
> tell me which side of the fight you're on.
>
>
> --
>
____________________________
NYLXS: New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
NYLXS is a trademark of NYLXS, Inc
|
|
