Of course the copyright holder does NOT consider it a gift but the law DOES (or DID before DMCA something for the courts and legislatures to reconsider now that the DMCA has altered that balance). The point is that if Keyware is to get the protection it should, then it should not also be allowed to clutter up the public mails and resources.
Johnzu wrote:
"To me the protection of keyware is a narrowly-defined "least restrictive means"
1A impact that benefits the public interest. "
What public interest is that? The only benefit is to the distributer of the software and the public has little if any. A new form of hightech junkmail and/or spam does not seem to be in the public interest . Nor is this form of distribution the "least restrictive". Purchase in the marketplace, through the mails, or even downloading off the Internet are as convenient and commonplace.
johnzu@ia.nsc.com Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
01/13/2003 01:33 PM
Please respond to dvd-discuss
To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
cc:
Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Postage Meters and the "Right to Tinker"
>I got the authority when I got ownership ... which
>they gave me as a gift.
Not according to the copyright holder. Certainly not when you consider
the DMCA. I would contend that a more reasonable, balanced view of
copyrights would respect a "keyware" model at least ethically. Much of
the most useful non-mainstream software in terms of shareware, nagware,
crippleware, demoware, and free-for-student-ware have been predominantly
keyware based. Just because I have legal right to a copy of a keyware work
(downloaded from Winzip.com legally), doesn't give me an ethical (nor
legal) right to crack the software because I don't like its license nagging.
I give up. Keyware should be protected exactly to the extent use controls
(post sale) like CSS shouldn't. One deals with making copies with or w/out
the copyright holders permission and to there financial detriment, the other
enforces cartel power across unrelated industries for no other reason than
the bullying power of the cartel.
If we can't agree that "keyware" TPM's should have legal
protection (and do AFAICT) then we and the content industry are going
to be at a "pro-life"/"pro-choice" level loggerhead (lagerhead?) and
progress and the public are ill served. We can yell "great taste/less
filling" across the void (while grabbing all the free swag we can), or
we can work constructively and consistently.
To me the protection of keyware is a narrowly-defined "least restrictive means"
1A impact that benefits the public interest. If you would rather that only
big companies that can by shelfspace and Microwarehouse pages sell software,
go ahead and promote the concept that keyware is ethical to crack. Keyware
allows a network/web/multilevel P2P distribution channel that is a strong
decentralizing and disintermediating force.