Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

The Worst Bill You've Never Heard Of 630

AWhiteFlame writes " is reporting on a section of the Reform Act of 2006 that's very shocking and surprisingly not that publicized. From the article: 'This will be a busy week in the House -- Congress goes into summer recess Friday, but not before considering the Section 115 Reform Act of 2006 (SIRA). Never heard of SIRA? That's the way Big Copyright and their lackey's want it, and it's bad news for you. Simply put, SIRA fundamentally redefines copyright and fair use in the digital world. It would require all incidental copies of music to be licensed separately from the originating copy. Even copies of songs that are cached in your computer's memory or buffered over a network would need yet another license.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Worst Bill You've Never Heard Of

Comments Filter:
  • by Ant P. ( 974313 ) on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @05:46AM (#15478281) Homepage
    The way I see it, this is yet another reason to pirate media instead of buying it.
  • by Astatine210 ( 528456 ) on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @05:46AM (#15478283)
    is "Should the legislators pass this law, how many of them would simultaneously be breaking it?".
  • by Elemenope ( 905108 ) on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @05:46AM (#15478284)

    I suppose it is, like most copyright legislation in the digital age, funadamentally unenforceable against those with savvy or those who are crafty enough to learn from those who are savvy. However, the fact remains that those two groups are a vanishingly small minority; seriously, how many XP users even think about updates? (How many just have it set to go automatically; I'm willing to bet a majority.) The danger of legislation should not be measured against those with the expertise and will to foil its provisions; a true test of the legitimacy of this legislation would be what effect it would have on those who take no special precautions or go out of their way to circumvent it. And on that standard, this legislation is very poor indeed.

  • by Down_in_the_Park ( 721993 ) on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @05:48AM (#15478286)
    Yet another reason to never upgrade....

    Sure, tell this to the average user, who buys computers with preinstalled Vista, OSX, etc. and has "automatic update" activ, because of all these virii. Or you may need a new driver (previous one stopped working, was only temp)...but you can access the driver page only after you installed a certain DRM-patch...
  • by Stoutlimb ( 143245 ) on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @06:01AM (#15478320)
    Do any of you get the idea that Congress is now the enemy of the USA people? I've seen law after law proposed (and sometimes passed) that harms the general public of the USA to benefit some small minority that wields some power (be it politicians, industry groups, etc.) Is there any way in the USA for the people to legally take back their own government?

    If so, I think you guys should get together and do it.
  • Bah! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Umbral Blot ( 737704 ) on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @06:02AM (#15478323) Homepage
    It's times like these that I hate living in a republic. What I wouldn't give for a real democracy!
  • by quentin_quayle ( 868719 ) <`quentin_quayle' `at' `'> on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @06:13AM (#15478364)

    "How are they planning to enforce this on existing setups? "

    Well maybe I'm just paranoid, but maybe that is an implicit purpose of this provision. It would take something like Microsoft's "protected content path" in Vista to monitor all the copies made. And there's nothing the MP/RI Ass. of America would like better than a comprehensive DRM system required by law. And it's entirely typical of interest groups to use one bad policy as a pretext for another.

  • by Jason1729 ( 561790 ) on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @06:30AM (#15478416)
    Yes, it's called Jury Nullification. The problem is I doubt any jury of 12 average americans will be smart enough to do anything useful.
  • Re:Bah! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Enderandrew ( 866215 ) <enderandrew AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @06:41AM (#15478451) Homepage Journal
    Really? People in Congress are supposedly educated, and they can't write decent legislation. Do you trust the American public to really make smart decisions? Furthermore, if anything the last Presidential election showed the American public is to apathetic to vote. I don't mind the concept of a Republic. In theory it is more efficient than polling the known universe on everything. However, what we need are better leaders in Congress. They have proven time and time again they don't know what the hell they are doing.

    Occasionally a third-party candidate with a brain comes along, and the two major parties make sure they never see the light of day. Partisan politics make sure that no one cares about actual issues. The only thing that matters in DC is making the other party look bad, and swearing blind allegiances to party lines, even if you don't know what the line is, or why the line was formed the way it was.
  • Vote. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by FhnuZoag ( 875558 ) on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @06:50AM (#15478477)
    Don't worry. Many of these assholes should be kicked out come the elections in November.

    Whether they would be replaced by new assholes, though, remains to be seen.
  • by linvir ( 970218 ) * on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @06:50AM (#15478481)
    And they say anarchy is freedom for the strong. Things like this make me wonder if democracy really is any better.
  • 5th grade grammar (Score:3, Insightful)

    by azav ( 469988 ) on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @06:56AM (#15478502) Homepage Journal
    That's the way Big Copyright and their lackey's want it...


    Oh come on people. This is 5th grade grammar. The proper spelling is lackeys. There is no apostrophe on a non possessive plural.

    If you can program, you should at least know how to spell.

    As a point of reference, yesterday, I counted three spelling mistakes in an important email from our legal department to a business partner. 1) the email address was misspelled, 2) the person's name was misspelled and the plural of "technologies" was spelled as "technology's".

    Simply put, when you are a professional and you screw up on a 5th grade level, you look like a fool.

  • by killjoe ( 766577 ) on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @07:07AM (#15478543)
    Why would that matter? You think the RIAA would sue the politicians? You think they would sue any rich person? These laws are designed to put ordinary people in their place, they are not designed to effect the rich and the powerful.
  • by SDF-7 ( 556604 ) on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @07:13AM (#15478561)
    I normally hate these "me too!" style posts -- but someone mod parent up. That summary should be edited into the ./ overview and the description amended.

    From that article, it really sounds like from the Copyright Office's point-of-view (which granted, has its own bias), this is a simplification. They in fact claim that separate copies currently require separate licensing to be accounted for -- this will remove that need by allowing distributors/streamers to be covered for all transitory copies (caching/whatnot in distribution) or stream fragments. Put that way, the bill makes a lot of sense to me.

    What's much more interesting is the section on Designated Agents. If this doesn't scream "lock the RIAA into their position via legal means", I don't know what does. Agents get to use royalties collected for tangential purposes such as legislation and "industry negotiations".. sheesh guys -- why not just add in "Designated Agents will receive services from suitably nubile copyright holders at will" while you're at it. Oh and the "Agent is the sole judge of auditing whether a liscencee has underpaid an agent" is really cute too... I appreciate the Copyright Office calling these jokers out on this... let's hope Congress pays attention to them.

    One thing the summary glosses over that bugs me, though:

    Digital music services need to be able to obtain licenses to cover all the musical works that they wish to make available. The SIRA addresses this issue by including a default provision that grants statutory authority to the General Designated Agent ("GDA") to license any works not specifically represented by an additional designated agent. Since each agent is required to make available a list of the musical works it is authorized to license for digital uses and any works not affirmatively identified may be presumed to be covered by the GDA's license, a licensee is not only assured that it has the ability to secure rights to all musical works, but it also has the necessary information to determine from whom to secure rights for a particular work as well.

    Does that read to anyone else as locking those agents with "significant marketshare" as the only gatekeepers of said blanket licensing (previously established as needed for distribution in this revised model)... which makes me wonder how individual independant artists (those who don't wish to be affiliated with a General Designated Agent) would go about licensing their work to iTunes or whatnot. If they're now effectively represented by a GDA (read RIAA and the like) whether they want to be or not... then I have to read this as a powergrab by the RIAA to ensure they maintain their position as the gatekeepers of distribution (now in the digital age), with all artists having to sign with them. Maybe I've just gotten too cynical..
  • by Stealth Potato ( 619366 ) on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @07:18AM (#15478581)
    Revolutions, also known as insurgencies, rebellions and terrorism, are illegal.

    Well, duh they're illegal. Why do you think such a thing would be necessary in the first place? That doesn't mean they're always wrong. Worked for us in 1776.

    And you're committing an error by lumping revolution in with terrorism - the two are most certainly not the same, though they are all too often good fellows.

  • by Enderandrew ( 866215 ) <enderandrew AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @07:20AM (#15478589) Homepage Journal
    Worse than []

    Worse than []

    I think the title is a bit melodramatic. There are tons of truly wretched bills that get passed every day. As it stands, downloading music that you didn't pay for is considered illegal in this country anyway. This new bill only clarifies the existing position by making you have licenses for every version of a song you have. I think it is silly. I don't think it is the worst thing Congress has done.
  • by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @07:33AM (#15478645) Homepage
    Great concept! so what are you going to run on your PC in 10 years? XP? dont think so. Linux? BSD? both of those will have caved in to the DRM monster by then as well.

    The only way to stop this crap is fighting it now. Get out and tell lots of people about this bill and that they need to call XXX-XXX-XXXX today to voice their concer to their senator/house rep/etc... you need to get the numbers for people and print out papers for them because if your friends and relatives and co-workers get distracted by a shiney object they will forget all about it. (Wonder why bush is asking for a no gay marriage amendment? it's nothing but a distraction for crap like this.)

  • Re:Vote. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mschaef ( 31494 ) on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @07:35AM (#15478651) Homepage
    "Many of these assholes should be kicked out come the elections in November."

    The problem is that there are assholes on both sides of the aisle. Fritz Hollings (D-Disney^H^H^H^H^H^HSouth Carolina) sponsored the SSSCA [], which tried to introduce some pretty extreme copyright enforcement provisions itself. Both the parties are so close together on so many issues like this, I'm not sure it matters who is in office.
  • by GroeFaZ ( 850443 ) on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @07:59AM (#15478754)
    I don't think the argument of tech-savviness applies in this case. You don't have to know your tech inside-out to know that multiple charging for the same song is plain wrong. I would even say it makes even less sense to the technically less skilled why a song in RAM or on the network should to treated as a new copy which can be treated - and charged - as a unique file, because, after all, they see no way of "abusing" this fact. They would only see that they are charged several times for purely technical reasons without having any benefit from it, and they will realize this very quickly.

    At least, the minority of more skilled people that understand why an .mp3 in RAM is independant of its source file can understand (not necessarily accept) the argument why they are two separate (albeit identical) instances of a piece of information. Of course, in the end it is very appropriate that this story makes /. on the date of 06/06/06.
  • by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @08:05AM (#15478773) Homepage
    Today's definition of Terrorism is very different from what the real definition is.

    GW and his puppeteers have defined Terrorism as anything that is done by anyone that is not the United states or it's allies.

    so, if you are a smaller force trying to attack a larger force, you are terrorists. if you are against anything that GWB is then you are a terrorist. if they want to label you a terrorist, then you are a terrorist.

    That is the greatest abomination of the patriot act, it allows you to violate all human rights by simply slapping a "terrorist" sticker on the intended victim.

  • by Professor_UNIX ( 867045 ) on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @08:13AM (#15478809)
    Or you may need a new driver (previous one stopped working, was only temp)...but you can access the driver page only after you installed a certain DRM-patch...

    They already did that with that Microsoft Genuine Windows crap they forced down your throat. How many people here were crying in their beer to find their pirated copy of Windows XP no longer worked after updates? ;-) Not me of course, I got it for "free" from the university.

  • Re:Vote. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) * on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @08:36AM (#15478910)
    I really hope you don't think that the parties are so close together on issues outside of copyrights and patents because they really aren't.
    The trouble is that "liberal" vs. "conservative" is irrelevant because both parties are Fascist! They might as well be the same thing, for all the good it does us.

    The real political spectrum to worry about is "libertarian" vs. "totalitarian," and right now we're entirely represented by the latter!
  • by Spy der Mann ( 805235 ) <spydermann.slashdot@ g m> on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @08:49AM (#15478974) Homepage Journal
    That's asumming you DO live in a democracy. Remember how Bush did NOT get the popular majority in 2000 (because of the famous electoral votes)? Remember Diebold?
  • by hackstraw ( 262471 ) * on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @09:12AM (#15479105)
    The way I see it, this is yet another reason to pirate media instead of buying it.

    Things have gotten so bad, that me and others like me feel less like a criminal by "stealing" software and music vs buying it.

    I had to call tech support one time because some software was not working via the license manager, and do you know why? We paid too much for it. My user had a single user license, and then my company bought a site license, which made the individual license not work.

    The now infamous Ernie Ball being raided by the BSA incident and the removal of all Microsoft products in 6 months is another example. The guy was completely legit, and he had to pay something like $20-30k in extortion to make sure that he was really paying enough for software.

    Its safer to pirate and download music now vs being rootkitted by buying it.

    I have over $1k in software at home that I am _terrified_ to touch because of all of the dongles and online registration and whatnot. Aside from the quality of the software not being that good, the crap that I have to go through just to make it work has really made me decide that I'm not going to buy software any more. I felt the same way when I bought my first C/C++ compiler. I paid something like $140 for it, and on the same computer gcc generated code that was 2-4x faster!

    So, the media companies have really convinced me and others that free media is better. Their loss, not mine.

  • by pavon ( 30274 ) on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @09:26AM (#15479194)
    Monarchy ensure freedom for the crown.
    Anarchy ensure freedom for the strong.
    Capitalism ensures freedom for the rich.
    Democracy ensures freedom for the majority.
    Republics ensure freedom for their constituents.
    All forms of government ensure freedom for those who are in power.

    No mechanism or form of government ensures freedom for all - the only way this is ever possible is if those in power choose to cede their capability to exploit those that are not. The great philosophers of democracy as well as the founding fathers of the US had no delusions about this. It was always understood by them that freedom for all is only obtained only by the enlightened self-interest of the law-makers, and preserved only by the eternal vigilance of the people. However, far too many members of our populace no longer understand this.
  • by Shawn Parr ( 712602 ) <parr@shawnpa r r .com> on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @09:41AM (#15479325) Homepage Journal

    the new compulsory license governs all nondramatic musical works and does not permit copyright owners to opt-out
    Sounds more to me like they are trying to rip off artists with this bill than end users or music services. The RIAA and associated companies are already well known for collecting royalties and not distributing them to the artists. This could let them dip into the independent artists pockets which are mostly inaccessible to them at this time.
  • by Brushfireb ( 635997 ) * on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @10:08AM (#15479546)
    Wow. I post a quote, and get a flame. So by posting a quote from Winston Churchill, I am "part of the problem"?

    Regardless of the "Flaminess" of your post, I will still respond.

    1 - I am not resistant to improving the situation. I know the US isnt great right now. I live here, work here, and vote here. Regardless of what you may think, its still one of the best places (speaking with regards to government and voting exclusively) to live, work, or vote. This was the meaning of my post. It sucks. But its better than many other things.

    2 - "Some of us don't want to take that lying down.. or bending over as the case may be. " Good. Does that also mean that you must have an irrational view of the world? Do you really think that your government form sucks that much? Its very easy to point out what sucks, but everyone quickly forgets the good tenants of the US democratic system.

    3 - "We want to come up with better ways of doing things, and I'm sure that there must be better ways. We need serious reform of our election system, first and foremost." That all sounds grand. Would you like to propose some actual solutions, or just bitch about how the current ones suck. Try being proactive. When you do, you will learn how difficult it is to create a perfectly balanced system that lasts over hundreds of years. Again, our current system isnt great, in fact its probably bad, but that doesnt mean we should throw it away overnight. There are good things here.

    4 - "Until then, we are stuck in a corrupt system that feeds off the cash of special interests and puts up walls to prevent the non-corrupt from getting in." And explain to me how this is different from ANY OTHER FORM OF GOVERNMENT. This is government, Get used to it. Improve it, Regulate it, Reform it, But you wont remove corruption from government. Where the power is, the corrupt go. Again, I am not trying to belittle your viewpoint, and I would tend to agree that it needs work, but I would rather see you propose solutions that just BITCH.

  • by Golias ( 176380 ) on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @10:16AM (#15479587)
    What, the "I'm too cheap to pay for it and I should be able to decide whether it's worth it before I buy it even though I wouldn't have bought it anyway because it's all commercialized overpriced unoriginal crap for which the artists aren't getting paid enough anyhow and it doesn't cost them anything when it's in digital form and besides information wants to be free as in beer and it's my right to be entertained for free because the evil greedy corporations are abusing copyrights in the US and so I'm standing up for my civil rights just like people did back in the 60's by sticking it to The Man" rationalization doesn't work for you?

    Slashdot needs a "+1, Flamebait, But Not Wrong" mod, just for posts like yours.
  • by pavon ( 30274 ) on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @10:50AM (#15479859)
    While I am not opposed to compulsary licensing on principle, this law has several problems.

    First off is the matter of incidental copies. As you mentioned, incidental copies created during the delivery of digital files are considered by some to be in a legal grey area. This law clarifies the position by stating that these copies are covered by the compulsary license. However, this is very dangerous wording as it legitimizes the concept that a license is needed for the copies. Furthermore, as the compulsary license only applies to "nondramatic musical works", this opens the door for others (MPAA, BSA, etc) to insist that licenses are required incidental copies of thier works. Most likely this would come in the form of worsening C&D actions which are too costly to defend against regardless of the eventual legality. The area becomes even shadier in the case of p2p distribution methods (when used legally - distributing copyrighted work without permission is undoubtedly illegal).

    This "grey area" does need to be clarified, and the intention of the section is good, however is needs to be worded in a way that debunks rather than supports the idea that incidental copies may need licenses. Something along the line of this:
    Incidental copies, such as caching and buffering that are made in the process of legally distributing a work acrossed a network or any other distibution channel, are to be considered fair use, and do not need explicit licenses. Such incidental copies are valid only for the purpose of legal redistribution, and any use beyond that require a license. Any copies of legally obtained works made for personal use (no distribution takes place) including format shifting and backups are also fair use, and do not need explicit license.

    IANAL, so I am sure that this could be worded better.

    Furthermore, as the copyright office is quoted in your post, streaming is not the same as distribution and the current poor wording of the bill that would strengthen those trying to treat streaming as distribution (like cd) rather than performance (like radio).

    All in all, the intent - to clarify the law and close legal traps for online music stores - is a good one, but the way it is written creates many more traps in the process.
  • I'm not entirely sure what people were smoking when they came up with this....

    From the text of the bill:

    ... by simply filing one license application ... a legitimate music service can obtain a license to utilize all musical works in the digital environment, rather than having to locate the various copyright owners of those works and clear the rights with each of them. Requiring the license to be available to all comers and deeming it to be automatically granted upon the filing of a proper application makes this licensing processing as instantaneous as possible. A key component is that the new compulsory license governs all nondramatic musical works and does not permit copyright owners to opt-out, which would otherwise jeopardize the efficiency of the entire blanket licensing structure.
    So if an artist for whatever reason happens to decide he doesn't want to grant permission to people to reproduce his works, he can be completely screwed over if they go over his head and get this so-called "global" license that applies to an unlimited number of digital works (and do you think that the artists are going to be fairly compensated for this? Fat chance)

    This bill offers do destroy the very foundations of Copyright if it passes, that is, the *EXCLUSIVE* rights of the copyright holder to grant permission to copy his or her works.

  • by Down_in_the_Park ( 721993 ) on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @11:43AM (#15480310)
    How can an OS that I can compile cave to the wishes of others?

    On what do you run your OS? Is it a computer? Well sooner or later it is going to fail and you need to buy a new one (or parts of it). Ever heard about HD-TV-ready hardware, which has a build in protection against analog copying and allows output only to a certain digital connector, which can't be interrupted (too lazy to dig up the details).

    What if future motherboards will have DRM already integrated and do need to have it integrated by law? And what if the american DRM legislation is enforced on your country by trade restrictions, WHO etc.?

    What if legislation requires that internet-routers check for a little signature in packets, that shows you have a DRM-enabled system or not?
  • by spun ( 1352 ) <loverevolutionar ... m ['oo.' in gap]> on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @01:14PM (#15481091) Journal
    The biggest argument against this is that it would let national campaigns marginalize low-population areas. Which, somehow, is better than marginalizing citizens who live in high-population areas.

    This is a direct result of our two Senators no matter what the population congress. The lower population states, usually but not always Republican states, get most of the pork, earning far more Federal dollars than they pay in taxes, while the high population states almost always pay far more in taxes than they take in.

    This is just another example of that principle at work. We should disband the senate and redistrict the congressional districts to prevent gerrymandering. Or better yet, elect congress by national random lottery. Why not give it a try? We really couldn't do much worse than we have now...
  • by demachina ( 71715 ) on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @01:36PM (#15481295)
    In reading the reviews it kind of sounds good until this part:

    " We need shorter work weeks, stronger labor unions, worker-owned or directed firms, less debt and more respect for the environment."

    Shorter work weeks would nice if it worked but in a globalized world its kind of a strategy for failure. Like it or not there are countries where people work a lot more than Americans, and pretty much everyone works more than Western Europeans. You simply wont compete with 30 hour weeks unless you actually pay people for 30 hours work and you are proposing cutting their annual incomes by a quarter which I don't think was the idea.

    I'd like to believe labor unions would make things better, but at least in the U.S., they started out good and then turned in to a force as malignant as corporations if not more so. First off they were taken over by power hungry corrupt people just like corporations and governments. You see union heads have power so they got corrupted just like all the other power centers. Even worse many unions fell under the control of organized crime. Second of all the have created environments where workers don't have to work. They can hide behind a blizzard of union rules that completely obstruct companies from getting the job done, managers managing or turning a profit. One of the strongest unions America has left is the United Auto Workers, and the fact that Ford and GM are at the mercy of their unions is insuring they are going to land in bankruptcy. They simply can't compete against Asian competitors who are operating without unions. Third unions suffer blatant cronyism, where you have to know the right people to get in to the union and then get a job, resulting in hiring of incompetent people with connections over the best qualified.

    Now maybe if you could unionize the entire planet so it was a level playing field it might work, but unilateral unionization of only American workers would just accelerate off shoring and the collapse of the U.S. economy.

    Less debt is unarguably good.

    Can't say if worker owned and directed firms would be good or bad. I'm guessing it would vary wildly from situation to situation. In some cases workers would be highly motivated by it and produce great results. In others worker would twist in to getting the most benefits for the least work, and would do strategically stupid things because it was in their self interest. Some executives do the same thing. My take is throwing this out like its the be all and end all solution is wrong, sometimes it would work and sometimes it wouldn't.
  • by compro01 ( 777531 ) on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @02:01PM (#15481534)
    No party has won >50% of the popular vote in Canada in eons, but they govern all the same. First past the post for teh win.

    but our system actually works, at least most of the time, due to the whole fact we have more than 2 "real" parties. we have 4 seat-holding parties in the house of commons, as opposed to the 2 seat-holding parties in the government in the US.
  • by serutan ( 259622 ) <(moc.nozakeeg) (ta) (guodpoons)> on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @03:58PM (#15482541) Homepage
    The best reason I know to ignore current copyright law is that nobody is obligated to keep their side of a broken contract. Copyright is a contract between the copyright holder and the public. The public agrees to pay the cost of enforcing the copyright for a specific length of time, in exchange for free access to the work at the end of that time. Changing the terms of copyright for new works is legitimate, but extending copyright on existing works breaks the existing contract.

    The Bono Act of 1998 not only extended copyright on existing works, but actually reimposed copyright on many works that had been in the public domain for decades. All audio recordings made before 1972 are now copyrighted until the year 2067, even wax cylinder recordings made by Thomas Edison in the 1890s. Congress might as well have declared all existing 30-year mortgages to be 95-year mortgages. If you've been making house payments for 29 years, how would you like to be told that you now have to keep making those payments for decades to come? Or that the house your parents paid off years ago belongs to the bank again, because Congress says so? You would be fully justified in telling Congress and the bank to go to hell, and defending yourself against anyone who came to enforce this law.

    This is what happens when special interests get their way with lawmakers, and the general public doesn't care enough to do anything about it. When Congress makes capricious pronouncements that defy fundamental concepts, the system ceases to make sense. Reasonable people have to be willing to stand up and defy unreasonable laws.
  • by louzerr ( 97449 ) <Mr.Pete.Nelson@gm a i l .com> on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @08:22PM (#15484270) Homepage
    A similar thought hit me one day when we ran into a duplicate license problem with Macromedia Dreamweaver (we had enough licenses, just used one twice).

    Think about it - they PAID someone to write code to make your software NOT WORK. Hmmm. Now, where did they get the money to pay this guy? Oh, from YOU!

    Now, think what software companies could do if they could get beyond all this paranoia and concentrated just on MAKING THE SOFTWARE WORK.

    Now, I'd PAY for that!

"If you lived today as if it were your last, you'd buy up a box of rockets and fire them all off, wouldn't you?" -- Garrison Keillor