On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 12:51:09PM +0000, Sellam Ismail wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Michael Nadeau wrote:
>
> > The classic computing hobby aside, The CBDTPA is stupid on a number of
> > levels. Most electronics manufacturers are against it, for example. They
> > say it will discourage innovation and slow the development of new
> > products. Civil libertarians oppose it for potential privacy issues and
> > its likelihood of impeding the free flow of information.
>
> And besides, it's unimplementable. Mostly due to the fact that someone
> will ALWAYS find a way around the "protection".
<soapbox>
And under this braindead law, the aforementioned someone has just
earned himself up to 5 years in jail. Really clever idea - just put
all those pesky hardware/software hackers in jail. This also nicely kill
the opensource scene which is just threatening the profits of companies
producing and selling commercial quality *cough* *cough* software.
And when everybody had his computer forcibly exchanged for a click-and-drool
webtv appliance, the vendor can activate the suicide timer which renders
the box inoperable after one or two years, forcing the customer to get a
recycled^Wnew one - for plenty of cash of course - in regular intervals.
Solves the problem of those pesky non-cooperating users who insist on not
buying the newest crap as soon as it hits the shelves.
Of course, after a few years, the hot top of the line computer
development will happen in China and not the US, but hey - the
politicians who supported this law will then no longer be in the
office, so why should they care?
Unfortunately, this kind of short-sighted "lets secure our profits now
and let others deal with the fall out" idiocy seems to be rather
widespread :-(
</soapbox>
Regards,
Alex.
--
We're gonna be body guards for teen rock-stars. Wouldn't the cause of freedom
be better served if we killed them instead?
-- Schlock from the ''Schlock Mercenary'' comic strip
Received on Sat Mar 30 2002 - 15:06:40 GMT