On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 13:38:25 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter)
wrote:
> Hi L!
> 13 Dec 2002, "L.D. Best" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> LB> I know why M$ came out of the monopoly court cases smelling like a
> LB> rose.
> LB> They sold us out to the Feds.
> Sure ... you only now realized ?
> Windows 2000 already contains a "NSA Key" ...
> Palladium and "trustworthy computing" aim at overimplementing the DMCA, and
> ignoring any other rights users have.
> Who wins:
> *) RIAA (music/film lobby)
> *) microsoft (can control your computer, and there will be parts of your
> computer that ONLY M$ can control, not even you as the OWNER of the computer)
> Who looses:
> *) you (computer owner)
> *) open source initiative (linux, bsd, gnu ...)
> The problem ... M$ has at the beginning really good arguments for selling it.
> M$ says that it will help the user against evil hackers and virii.
> (who programmed that sh*t which is soooo vulnerable against virii hmmm ...)
> And after the user notices that he can't play his&her MP3s for example it will
> be too late.
> Until than the wonderful and highly intelligent, but not at all lobby
> controlled (hahahahaha) US government, will make a lobby protection home act,
> which forbades selling normal computers, which lack "trustworthy features",
and
> George W will sign the death sentences for people "dealing" with normal
> computers himself.
George W. would never sign a ban against the selling of normal
computers. Such a ban would be contrary to the support of Free
Enterprise, a concept very strongly endorsed and supported by the
Republican Party, of which George W. is the acknowledged leader.
Furthermore, such a ban would be illegal because it would be totally
contrary to the anti-monopoly laws. It would be illegal also under
the First Ammendment of the US Constitution which guarantees freedom
of speech. The writing of computer programs is a protected freedom
of speech.
> Afterwards the import of open source will be forbidden, because it is a copy
> protection circumvention device (I LOVE DMCA terminology)
Open source software is not designed *for the purpose* of circumventing
copyright protection. Therefore, it cannot be banned. The fact that
open source software may be capable of circumventing copyright
protection is attributable only to the rules of logic which the software
allows the computer to act upon. The software is not designed *for the
purpose* of defeating copyright protection.
Here is an interesting analogy for you:
Manufacturers of ammunition for sporting use in the US do not design
bullets *for the purpose* of penetrating the so-called "bullet proof"
vests that police officers wear. The fact that almost all kinds of
bullets can do that if fired at sufficient velocity is a simple fact
of physics. Since the bullets are not designed *for the purpose* of
penetrating the so-called bullet proof vests that police officers
wear, they cannot be banned. There is no such thing as a "cop-killer
bullet". Likewise, and logically, there is no such thing as
"copyright-protection-defeating open source software".
I am totally in favor of anti-crime legislation for protecting law
enforcement officers. Also I am in favor of legislation to protect
copyrights for authors and artists. It is a futility of the utmost
absurdity to even think that we can protect these people by legislating
against the laws of physics and the rules of logic. These kinds of
laws and rules are not subject to change.
> 13 Dec 2002, "L.D. Best" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> LB> I know why M$ came out of the monopoly court cases smelling like a
> LB> rose.
> LB> They sold us out to the Feds.
> Sure ... you only now realized ?
> Windows 2000 already contains a "NSA Key" ...
> Palladium and "trustworthy computing" aim at overimplementing the DMCA, and
> ignoring any other rights users have.
> Who wins:
> *) RIAA (music/film lobby)
> *) microsoft (can control your computer, and there will be parts of your
> computer that ONLY M$ can control, not even you as the OWNER of the computer)
> Who looses:
> *) you (computer owner)
> *) open source initiative (linux, bsd, gnu ...)
> The problem ... M$ has at the beginning really good arguments for selling it.
> M$ says that it will help the user against evil hackers and virii.
> (who programmed that sh*t which is soooo vulnerable against virii hmmm ...)
> And after the user notices that he can't play his&her MP3s for example it will
> be too late.
> Until than the wonderful and highly intelligent, but not at all lobby
> controlled (hahahahaha) US government, will make a lobby protection home act,
> which forbades selling normal computers, which lack "trustworthy features",
and
> LB> Allow us to keep our tight monopoly and closed source, and we'll
> LB> provide the Federal Government with the software tools to spy on
> LB> everyone using Microsoft Windows.
> exactly this :(
> LB> l.d.
> CU, Ricsi
> PS: Another question, my beloved Walker says that he has the ultimate proof
> that iraq has mass destruction weapons. He could tremendously help the UN by
> providing this information, so the inspectors would know where exactly to
> search for them.
> But naturally the US doesn't do it, because this would lead away from war, and
> than the weapon lobby would cry, because they couldn't sell their wonderful
> weapons ...
> what a twisted world we live in.
> --
> |~)o _ _o Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> {ICQ: 7659421} (PGP)
> |~\|(__\| -=> Error failed! Press any key to resume error <=-
Sam Heywood
--
This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser:
http://browser.arachne.cz/
