State Super-DMCA Too True

Sun Mar 30 16:08:08 UTC 2003

Jamie Lawrence wrote:
> 
> "There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the
> notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the
> public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged 
> with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face
> of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange 
> doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals
> nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock
> of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit."
>    - Robert Heinlein, "Life Line", 1939.
> 
> 

It's not a matter of guaranteeing profit. It is a matter of stopping 
theft. Please see the old laws protecting telephone and cable companies. 
Now they asked it to be extended to help protect ISPs.

The only part I do have an issue with in the Act is the fact that it 
limits the use of NAT devices where an ISP does not allow them. However, 
I do not construe this as a serious problem, as people using the service 
shouldn't use such technologies in the first place. They are knowingly 
bypassing the terms of service. As for the other providers, the Act 
doesn't apply.

While many whine and complain, I particularly like the protections on 
the copyrights, including the X-box. Most people didn't have the 
knowledge to make blank cartriges in the olds days and download the code 
to the cartriges to play a game. Everyone can download software and burn 
a CD. Smack in a mod chip and you're good to go. I may not like M$, but 
I have to respect their copyrights.

-Jack