-----Original Message----- From: Curtis [mailto:crhaden at gotrain.org] I guess the grinding question of my story, and the story I have linked here is: Should technological advances and the sharing of knowledge, via the internet, be protected by the law of Corporate Copyright? I have no problem with someone coming up with an original idea and profiting from it. Hell, its the Hungarian...err...American dream. But, should we allow, the people who have all the money, to tell us that we can't share or copy software, on the chance that someone else may profit from it? -----End Original Message----- I'm not worried about court cases. Yes, the RIAA and it's ilk can spend enough money to persuade the governments of the world to impose stifling restrictions on technology and innovation. But you know what? There are more people in the world that are far smarter than the sort of business executive that makes the kinds of decisions that lead to the DMCA. If those executives had some sense, they'd work with the technology. There's always going to be someone smart enough to break whatever form of technical restriction that is put in place to protect "content" (a word I now despise). If you don't think so, read the following for some arguments. Unfortunately, I don't recall where I found the link. http://www.craphound.com/msftdrm.txt With that said, the fact that corporations want to make things illegal is pointless when breaking those laws is so simple, and the reasons for doing so are so compelling (e-books for the blind anyone?) that violations will eventually become commonplace. The corporations can't sue everyone in existence, though some seem to be trying. What worries me is the new tack that these corporations are taking. They call them "education campaigns" or something similar. I call them an attempt to brainwash parents, and therefore children, into thinking that whatever the corporation thinks is good for the corporation must be good for the public, a stance that is patently false. Yes, many people deserve some recompense for their services. No, I don't believe the RIAA or their labels are the entities deserving of that compensation. As for the software market, I refuse to pay Microsoft for subscription virus and spyware updates when it's their own faulty software that makes such updates necessary to begin with. I refuse to pay any software company for a new version that fails to provide something more than what was expected in the old version (like stability for instance). I refuse to pay for software whose license (a legal contract that I believe has been tried in court and found binding, though I'm not sure) I'm not allowed to read until it's too late. I refuse to pay for software that I cannot test, or determine in some other manner if it will meet my needs. I refuse to pay for software that attempts to spy on my computer activities, or performs other functions of which I am unaware. Hm, maybe I should just stop there before I really get started ranting.