You might be right that M$ has legal grounds for winning an appeal (and most commentators agree with this view) but the repercussions of a victory for M$ (since it would be landmark) should be considered from a moral point of view, not just a legalistic one. (I'm talking about the kerberos debacle here too). Big cases such as this where the outcome would have such an effect on innovation/competition in the technology market place (and on the future of free speech on the web as per/. Vs M$) should be decided with a view towards the future and the common good. M$ might have sound legal arguments but they are still a monopoly (lawyers will find loopholes in any law). Maybe ppl shouldn't be allowed post comments on/. describing how to circumvent propriety software (kerberos not being an example) but free speech still has to be protected on the net. My worst fear is that if big corporations get their way and stupid privacy(lack of)/DMCA/liability of ISPs legislation is passed, then the net we have come to love will end up as a contentless online shopping mall. And knowing M$, one that's about as secure as a house made of cards.
The reason that ppl want the Government to step in is because it's also a country passionate about democracy, a free market and free speech. M$ is undoubtable a Capitalistic success but it doesn't seem to be doing anything to promote a free market or free speech. Also the big companies have more political power/influence than the ppl and use politics to maintain that power and use it to their advantage (DMCA for a start). Government are more likely to listen to a big corporation cos they drive the economy and it's in the governments (financial and argueably party) interest to support/listen to them. The ppl that want something done need to go through a heap of bureaucracy and red tape to make a submission to have their voice heard and then it's largely ignored by the government cos after all, you can't really listen to everyone. Corporations get to skip all this red tape and have too much of an influence in politics for the general good. What the solution/alternative to this is I don't know though. Personally i'm incensed by how the net is being/proposed to be, legislated but what can I do? Organise a demonstration? There has to be a way to have the ppls voice heard. If the government recognised a community like/. for the (in general) intelligent and intouch with technology community that it is, then maybe the best comments could be chosen by moderaters and sent to be considered by ppl/committes with influence (but who are impartial) and recommendations given by them to government as a basis for future legislation.
Slashdot Mirror
You might be right that M$ has legal grounds for winning an appeal (and most commentators agree with this view) but the repercussions of a victory for M$ (since it would be landmark) should be considered from a moral point of view, not just a legalistic one. (I'm talking about the kerberos debacle here too). /. Vs M$) should be decided with a view towards the future and the common good. M$ might have sound legal arguments but they are still a monopoly (lawyers will find loopholes in any law). Maybe ppl shouldn't be allowed post comments on /. describing how to circumvent propriety software (kerberos not being an example) but free speech still has to be protected on the net.
Big cases such as this where the outcome would have such an effect on innovation/competition in the technology market place (and on the future of free speech on the web as per
My worst fear is that if big corporations get their way and stupid privacy(lack of)/DMCA/liability of ISPs legislation is passed, then the net we have come to love will end up as a contentless online shopping mall. And knowing M$, one that's about as secure as a house made of cards.
The reason that ppl want the Government to step in is because it's also a country passionate about democracy, a free market and free speech. M$ is undoubtable a Capitalistic success but it doesn't seem to be doing anything to promote a free market or free speech. Also the big companies have more political power/influence than the ppl and use politics to maintain that power and use it to their advantage (DMCA for a start). Government are more likely to listen to a big corporation cos they drive the economy and it's in the governments (financial and argueably party) interest to support/listen to them. The ppl that want something done need to go through a heap of bureaucracy and red tape to make a submission to have their voice heard and then it's largely ignored by the government cos after all, you can't really listen to everyone. Corporations get to skip all this red tape and have too much of an influence in politics for the general good. What the solution/alternative to this is I don't know though. Personally i'm incensed by how the net is being/proposed to be, legislated but what can I do? Organise a demonstration? There has to be a way to have the ppls voice heard. If the government recognised a community like /. for the (in general) intelligent and intouch with technology community that it is, then maybe the best comments could be chosen by moderaters and sent to be considered by ppl/committes with influence (but who are impartial) and recommendations given by them to government as a basis for future legislation.
erm...what's the difference?you have copyright and ownership but they (macromedia) still can use it? sounds a bit contradictionary to me.