Greg London [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth:
*>
*>you can know how to decrypt CSS scrambling,
*>but don't write it down in a rigidly defined
*>language (C or Perl). but its OK to describe
*>it in a fluid, interpretive language (English).
I don't think anyone really understands the impact of the collision of
technology and copyright/IP and certainly trying to apply old solutions to
new ideas is not going to work here...a painful lesson learned by many
newspapers who tried to treat the new medium in the same way as print.
Artists and authors have a right to expect to get paid for their creations
and I'm no champion or user of napster but the medium that makes it easy
and convenient to access books and music and other forms of art is of
interest. It's a pity that both sides can't find their quid pro quo
instead of antagonising each other.
I hope at some point people decide that this issue needs to be solved
quickly and agreeably, stop bickering and make some suitable guidelines so
we can all use the technology without legal angst and ambiguity. And,
while everyone is distracted with all the Napster, et al hype I wonder
what legislation is being slipped in the back door while we aren't
looking.
n.b. I suspect the reason the judge didn't rule against the version in
English is that it would impinge upon the Freedom of Speech. I don't know
that computer programs were covered in the concept of free speech when the
contstitution was written.
"You can't win an argument with an ignorant man." - H.L. Mencken
e.
