At 08:19 AM 8/9/03 -0500, Craig Parmerlee wrote: >Frankly I can't imagine why anybody who >intended to abide by the license would be complaining about this.
It's for the same reason somebody might object to being searched while having nothing to hide, or to seat belt laws while always wearing one, or to gun-control laws while never owning one, or anti-terrorism laws while never engaging in it, or zoning laws while never violating them, or anti-drug laws while never using drugs ... because some issues are ethical ones and belong in the realm of liberty. Liberty as a concept is increasingly eroded in our presently corporate-centric society allows companies to engage in behavior that the government may not engage in, including unwarrented searches (urine tests), restrictions on outside behavior (no smoking even off duty), expropriation of thought (where all ideas belong to the company, not matter when they're written down during the period of employment), covenants against present *and* future behavior (NDAs are a good example), and any manner of actions that in the public sphere would be disallowed under Constitutional protections. Copy protection is at heart unethical because it contractually exploits those who obey its terms, making its buyers digital serfs on the intellectual property plantation. That's why I call such software "victimware". Dennis _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
