At 09:02 AM 3/21/00, Ed Gerck wrote:
>I agree with you. But I venture that in the quagmire seem to be in (and you
>well reflect the conflicting views above), I prefer to see the logic of ethics
>rather than the logic of power reflected for example in the Digital Millennium
>Copyright Act that supports Disney Studios to tell me that I cannot skip
>their commercials in the DVD I bought.
I don't think it's useful to talk about what you or I might "prefer to
see", since external events continue to occur regardless of our preferences.
Do you think that Disney is motivated by the "logic of ethics"?
Does the logic of your ethics allow you to ignore the commercials, or are
you honor bound to watch them instead of fluffing the pillows on the couch
or going to the bathroom?
>Further, what this thread is about is whether CB's product could be rigthfully
>decompiled and the results published to the world, to obtain either fame or
>money (profiting thereby, in any case). While we have evidence that
>decompiling is allowed by US federal law and in Norway (for example),
>we also see evidence in Microsoft's defeat in Stac that decompiling *and
>then* using the results for profit is not allowed.
I can see where that's a sensible reading of the result, in the same way
that the cargo cults' response to airplanes and 20th century detritus
washing up on their shores is also sensible. If you want to avoid analysis
and understanding and focus on surface effects, I think that a better myth
to base your decisions on would be something like "it makes the powerful
corporation-gods angry when we don't watch their commercials" or "Santa
Claus knows when you run a debugger, and he never brings presents to
naughty boys and girls who peek inside other people's software."
>The logic of ethics show me that this is not socially responsible either,
>because it would provide an incentive to crime -- stealing, to be precise,
>for a profit.
That sounds precisely wrong; copyright infringement is not stealing, nor is
breach of contract, nor even violation of the DMCA. "Stealing" might be a
good word to use if you're talking to a 5 year old, but not if you're
hoping to do something more sophisticated than that. You might take a look
at US v. Dowling (473 US 207 (1985)
<http://laws.findlaw.com/US/473/207.html>) for more about that.
