[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [dvd-discuss] DCMA Criticism in SIAM News

> -----Original Message-----
> From: microlenz@earthlink.net [mailto:microlenz@earthlink.net]
>  I loved the quotation from Litvack (MPAA, VP , etc.) "Carrying a 
> pocket knife on a plane in and of itself doesn't damage 
> anything,...but we arrest people who do it because the potential for 
> harm is so bad, we want to stop the action before the harm 
> occurs..." and comparing Litvack's method to prosecuting knife 
> manufacturers....

They went after tobacco companies for things that people
did to themselves even after the potential problems were
well known.

They went after handgun manufacturers because they did
not like the uses to which some (not even a large
percentage) of the guns sold were being put.

What would be wrong with going after the pocket knife
(or box cutter) manufacturers for their part in the
airplane hijackings?

That's just the way these people think, folks.

Some instances are clearer to one group of people,
other instances are clearer to another ... it all
depends upon "whose ox is being gored" as it were.

We are sensitive to this approach when the thing being
targeted is an otherwise useful device that may also
be used to bypass DRMs ... but it's _all_ the same
mindset: blame the maker instead of the user.

Responsiblity must attach to the person who makes the 
choice in how something is _used_.  This is a fundamental
principle that must be held as a standard for any law
to meet.

When they came for the tobacco companies, I did not
fight because I do not smoke.  (actually I completely
abhor smoking ...)

When they came for the handgun companies I did not
fight because I do not like handguns.

When they came for the software companies there was
too much precedent in the courts to fight ...

(Let's just hope that last part is wrong, eh?)

-Richard M. Hartman

186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!