Slashdot Mirror
CFP 2002 Wrapup
Roger Clarke is an computer scientist who attends many of the CFP conferences, and more importantly for our purposes, takes notes. His notes for this year's conference make good reading and cover a wide variety of issues that Slashdot touches upon. Privacy, biometrics, domain names, the digital divide, intellectual property, it's all here. NTK this week has a nice quip on the conference: "And the more the CFPers confer, the more they seemed to realise that Hollywood is going for the hat-trick: taking away freedom, privacy *and* computers. Pretty impressive. But only if they manage it."
Ofcourse he was. But there's one thing I don't get. Maybe he explained this to you, and in that case you might inform me.
The MPAA and RIAA says we don't buy the product but a license to the use of the content. So we don't actually own it, we just own the right to use it, under their terms. Isnt that sweet? :)
Sweet because that would imply that if I loose a CD or a DVD that would mean I should get a new one for free, right? I mean, I got the right to view the content, right?
If I wasn't getting a new one for free, that would conclude I actually bought the product, not just a license to use it.
So in order for the MPAA and RIAA to validly claim that we only buy our license to view the content, any dealer would be obligated to give us a new copy for free, if we loose or damage ord CDs and DVDs, right? (And he should ofcourse be given a refund for the lost/faulty product)
I think this claim makes sense.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
Flash back a century. "Motor car owners need to remember that horse-buggy makers and the horse-buggy industry employ thousands - if not millions - and generate huge revenues for the US."
Or maybe a bit earlier? "Electric lightbulb users need to remember that oil-lamp makers and the oil lamp industry employ thousands - if not millions - and generate huge revenues for the US."
Get the picture yet?