I have patents and copyrighted materials, so I'm part of the crowd that benefits from legal protections, but I'm not in that gang who thinks their ownership is infinite and their capacity to control the aftermarket has no boundaries.
One of my works does explode if you hand your purchased copy to a friend. One of my books does not burst into flame and take out the bookcase it it resting in. Looking at my inventions does not melt the reading glasses of someone wishing to learn from, or enjoy, what I've created. Protecting a right to property does not mean shooting someone coming up your walk to ask a question because they are lost. That manner is decidedly wrong. Ooops. I wish I had known, Officer. Copyrights, patents, and the like, all expire. My repayment for being creative is to benefit from my efforts for a finite period of time in exchange for placing my work in public domain. Theoretically, the public is enriched by this system and creative efforts are free-flowing and available after the protection expires. If I kept a CD for the length of its copyright protection period, it is absolutely mine after that to do with as I wish. I can make a million copies, but I am also sure no one in that future time will really care about our present drivel, so I'll have a large inventory unlikely to be even given away, less sold. Greed is the issue. If I buy a car, I don't have to kiss the manufacturer's butt and pay each time I do something with that vehicle. If I sell it or give it away, I don't send a fee to the factory. With artistic works and now more ugly with software, I seem to be allowed to pay an inflated fee only for the custodial use of a product. If I read my software licenses, I can't even put my program on two different machines that I might own--one at home and one at the cottage. Why? Because I agreed to this by tearing the plastic from the box!!! Give me a break. I pay for things and I am ethical, but I do not bend to some arrogant, excessive Bill gates wannabe who distorts the purpose and balance of copyright laws to keep feeding at the trough. There is no unfair end-user control over another's creative property. Technology opens many doors and offers advantages and disadvantages. The invention of the printing press gave us all new freedoms. CD's gave publishers new access to more money, but they do not own us or own what we think, see or hear. I pay for their product. I'm sorry that others might steal it, but this technique destroys the equipment, apparently, of the innocents under some assumption that reading their discs with a different machine than a $60 CD player gives them the right to punish everything. This is the terrorism theme today, go out and destroy what you want, regardless of collateral damage, under a claim of pre-emptive strikes to protect one's security (money). Great for the big guys; bad news for the collaterals. I'm sorry. The existence of the binary stars of Sony Corp and their treasure, "J to Tha L-O lala, by the phlegmatic Jennie Lopez, do not move the magnetic wave meter in my universe. What will p me off greatly is to have to trot somewhere and pay for a fix because these clowns think they have an answer. I hope they get their butts sued off--for more than they took in. That's punitive damages in its raw form--and the recapture of justice. Bob The Yank on a bank in lovely suburban Nova Scotia. ----------------------- Mac Duff wrote: >On 5/11/02 12:37 PM, "Bob Wulkowicz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>I do blame them for trying. >> > >--snip-- > >Bob, they have a right to protect their property. It is the manner with >which they are trying to do so that is totally wrong. I am in no way >condoning their method, but I don't blame them for searching out a solution >to the problem of digital copying of creative content. Believe me, this >method is stupid, and as you infer, tantamount to terrorism. I guess the >ending line in your original post was the crux of my reply: Technology has >given the end-user unfair control over another's creative property. The >songwriters, performers, and yes; the publishers (i.e.; the labels), deserve >to be paid when folks want to initially acquire a recording of theirs. >Alluding to your post, we now have the power to control distribution of >recordings. > >I'm just saying that this power should not rest with us. > > >Mac Duff > > -- Mac Canada is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> and... Shop Canadian, visit Mantek Services <http://www.mantek.mb.ca> Low Prices That Will Keep YOU and Your MAC Smiling Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html> Mac Canada info: <http://lowendmac.com/lists/mac-can.shtml> Send list messages to: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/mac-canada%40mail.maclaunch.com/> Using a Mac? Free email & more at Applelinks! http://www.applelinks.com
