I have no idea how you came to the (inaccurate) conclusion that I was a dualist. God is all-powerful, He simply chooses not to exercise that power and respect many of our choices.
I have no idea why He chooses to respect certain choices and not step in. I don't claim to know that.
Your terrorist analogy breaks down because you're blaming God for our sin. We don't have to sin. God didn't create us so that we are programmed to automatically sin. You could hypothetically go your entire life without sinning.
God did not point mankind down the path of damnation. Re-read Genesis. We were in a true and loving relationships with God until we (not to be confused with God) screwed it up.
If this conversation is of value to you I will be more than happy to continue it.
How is Christ forcing love? Because He chooses to respect your opportunity to ignore Him?
Yes, you choose to ignore Him at your own peril, but that's due to our actions, not His. Your referenced verse in Mark is simply telling us that we "shall be damned" because of our own actions.
This isn't a case of God feeling spurned and taking his toys and going home. This is a case of us not having the right to play with the toys to begin with, and acceptance through Christ being the only way.
The image that I consider when looking at Hell is that of an individual who drops an easy, game-winning touchdown in the Super Bowl as time expires. He sits there, pounding his fist into the ground, knowing that he had a chance to do the right thing but failed. Repeat that feeling for all eternity.
Fire and brimstone isn't required, but I don't dogmatically claim one way or the other about the general ambience of Hell.
Actually, consider God a libertarian. He set up a system where you have the choice to love Him or not. It's your call. In Romans, Paul is simply remarking the obvious: all of us have chosen at some point not to love Him.
This unavoidableness that you complain about isn't God's fault. To remove the capacity to walk away from Him is to remove from us the option of loving Him, as love without free will is rape.
God is still very much in charge. It's just that He loved us enough to give us the choice of loving Him, and when we choose to walk away He has loved us enough to die in our place so that we can walk back.
I don't view Hell primarily as punishment. I view it as respect for choices made. If you wish to deny God then He has enough respect and love for you to honor that choice. God, by His perfect nature, can only be in true relationship with that which is also perfect. I'm not perfect, as I've chosen to walk away from God (ie "sin"). However, through the voluntary human death and resurrection of God I am able to be made perfect once this life is over. That way I am able to be in a perfect relationship with a perfect being.
Those who freely chose to reject that relationship have their choice respected, and they are separated from God on a permanent basis.
You make some valid points, and I think we really are on the same page.
If working on cars was scientifically shown to cause such types of harm that we have collectively decided is worthy of regulation, would you agree that working on cars should be regulated?
That's what I'm saying in my comment. If (and that's a heck of an if) internet porn could be shown to not only cause harm, but also a harm of a type that we choose to regulate, then we should consider that regulation. But if that harm has not been shown (which would be true of all of your examples) then we shouldn't regulate.
However, the argument for regulation would have to be quite compelling as we are in fact restricting personal liberty.
As to my personal morality, I would like to see internet porn disappear. However, I'm not going to advocate heavy regulation of said internet porn (ie imposing my morality) until the secular tests enunciated above are fulfilled.
First, my background. I am an Evangelical Christian, as well as a future law student. I vote Republican more often than Democrat (not particularly liking either party), but am also a financial supporter of the EFF.
Do I believe pornography to be morally wrong? Without question. Do I believe pornography should be heavily regulated beyond how it currently is? Not necessarily.
My default position on any issue is "Show love, and respect personal liberty." The first aspect is inviolable, as God incarnated in Jesus directly commanded us to love Him and others, setting this as the most important consideration in any situation.
As to the second aspect, at heart I'm a Libertarian. However, there are many situations where personal liberty should not be respected. Your personal liberty to fire a shotgun should not be allowed when I am standing directly in front of said shotgun. Here, the consideration overriding your personal liberty is the harm done to others. (Our consideration of showing love incarnates itself by respecting human dignity in punishment that is humane and, when possible, rehabilitative.)
So let's apply these two principles to a third. Specifically, Christianity's political-legal struggles are more successful when the Christian stance is argued from the same secular assumptions that are largely shared by the other side.
Beating a Bible may produce (what I hold to be) Truth, but that "evidence" is inadmissable in a court under our current interpretation of the Establishment Clause (a discussion in and of itself). So Christianity needs to divorce the morality play from this and show the secular manifestations of harm produced by pornography. The current tactics fail to show love to the "other side" by, quite frankly, insulting your intelligence.
Coming up with new jargon like "erototoxins" or whatever is worthless without science to back it up. If there is a medical basis, using established tests for addiction, to the argument that pornography feeds into itself and leads to self-destructive behavior and other costs that society is unwilling to absorb, then we need to see that medical basis clearly presented.
A complimentary line of reasoning might be similar to that used against tobacco companies: the product is addictive (to a point society is not willing to tolerate) and individuals are not necessarily aware of that addiction.
But screaming "this leads to masturbation!" is not going to get us anywhere.
I would personally love to see less pornography on the Internet at large, as I know firsthand the destruction to self-control and personal relationships that it can bring.
But we cannot sacrifice personal liberty in the process without a compelling reason. I do not believe that compelling reason has yet been articulated under secular reasoning.
The Strawberry Shortcake pic was SATIRE, not PARODY. Parody is when you use someone's art to make fun of the original artist, while with satire you use someone's art to make fun of a third party.
Parody is strongly protected speech, while satire is less strongly protected. In the case you are referencing Strawberry Shortcake was being used to make fun of American McGee, who was a third party. Hence, it was not parody, but satire.
I believe there may have been a trademark issue as well (don't have time to research the case), but the pic was not as protected on free speech grounds as you claim it to be.
All that said, I do applaud PA for their work on that. It was without question art.
But as I said in the write-up: "what the teenagers may think, or even may have largely experienced themselves, is irrelevant to the rating."
The standard for the rating concerns parents, not children. We can argue that the rating should include expectations of children, but for now it does not.
At the end of my write-up I end up deciding that the NC-17 would be justified, and since it's the industry voluntarily doing it (and not the government) there isn't really a free speech issue.
There are two points on which my argument turns: first, that "those both under and over 17 are probably used to seeing vaginal sex referenced and occuring in mainstream commercial films, but are not used to seeing oral sex occuring." That fact would trigger "a film that most parents will consider patently too adult for their youngsters under 17."
The second is that self-regulation, under the implicit threat of governmental regulation if self-regulation doesn't occur, is not indirect censorship. And even if it were, it's only partial censorship, as consenting adults still have access to the film.
I actually ended up endorsing a different position than I expected going in. However, my argument would be different if I viewed "as indirect censorship the government's long standing threat of the forced general labeling of movies absent industry self-regulation" (to quote myself).
About a week ago Lawrence Lessig mentioned a new book called Promises to Keep . The book, written by Prof. William Fisher, chronicles a bit of entertainment industry history and the various "alternatives we face for protecting copyright in a digital age" (to use Lessig's phrase).
Chapter Six is freely available (66-page PDF), and in that chapter an alternative compensation system proposed by Fisher (not entirely unlike Von Lohmann's from the main article) is outlined in excruciating detail. This detail includes specific cost and savings estimates.
What makes Fisher's proposal interesting is that he also includes a mechanism to allow derivative works to be created, and for both deriving and derived authors to be compensated.
OK, this isn't on Half-Life 2, but it is on the concept of pre-loading / pre-releasing aspects of a game.
One thing I've never understood is why the publishers of highly anticipated role-playing games (I'm thinking Baldur's Gate and NeverWinter Nights here) don't pre-release the character generator.
By the time a specific release date has been set, the character formats should be firmly decided. Allowing players (or potential players!) to pre-create their characters is only going to create buzz and give people a reason to want to put those characters to use. It's a realizable benefit for the publisher without a significant financial cost.
I have just written MySQL AB requesting some documentation so I can explore the issue more in depth. The text of what I sent follows.
- Neil Wehneman
*****
I am a senior at The Ohio State University in Information Systems, and will be entering law school in twelve months. My area of focus within law school will by copyrights, patents, and the intersection of technology and law.
There appears to be a significant amount of confusion within the community in regards to how MySQL AB handles licensing, and which situations require which licenses.
I have previously written on licenses, specifically analyzing the Creative Commons Public License line by line (http://fallinggrace.com/article.php?story=2004081 5183229987).
I would like to examine and explain to the community in detail the interaction between the different licenses (and obligations) that MySQL AB makes available.
All writers carry bias, and I will partially explain mine now. I believe MySQL AB to be a company that has created and championed a business model that is innovative and allows for both Free Software / Open-Source ideals to be fulfilled alongside traditional fudiciary obligations.
I believe the confusion to lie with the (forgivable) ignorance of the community at large. My goal is to lessen that ignorance and allow the community to focus on more important battles and not internal bickering.
To aid in writing this paper, I would appreciate the following (either as email attachments or hyperlinks):
1) Full text of the "MySQL Pro" license
2) Full text of the "MySQL Classic" license
3) Agreements required of non-MySQL AB programmers who wish to contribute to the authoritative code-base
4) Any and all other licenses, contracts, or agreements that you believe would aid in effectively writing a paper such as this
I thank you in advance for your time and assistance. I may be contacted by phone or email if you have questions or comments.
If the people who contribute the code affirmatively grant MySQL AB copyright upon it, then yes, MySQL AB can do what they want.
Without that affirmative consent, no, MySQL AB could not do this. MySQL AB collects that consent before adding contributions into the authoritative code-base.
Those who do not wish to give MySQL AB consent to re-license have the "right of revolution" to fork the MySQL code-base and call it something else.
MySQL AB retains copyright over the MySQL codebase because they require that copyright to contributions be assigned to MySQL AB. MySQL AB then takes that newly added to codebase and releases it under the GPL.
Of courrse, it doesn't help that MySQL AB really does try to do the above.
This is not necessarily directed at you, but I think a lot of people don't fully understand how MySQL AB operates in regards to copyright / GPL.
MySQL AB offers the MySQL code to all comers under the GPL. If you want to use the GPL'd code under the terms of the GPL, it's right there waiting for you.
If you wish to use the MySQL code in a way that is incompatible with the GPL, you have the option of purchasing a non-GPL license.
MySQL AB accomplishes this by requiring anyone who wishes to contribute code to the authoritative codebase to assign copyright to MySQL AB. (I have not read the exact verbage used by MySQL AB, but I will for a future project examining their business model.)
This assignment allows MySQL AB to offer GPL'd code under non-GPL terms for a license fee. After all, MySQL AB is the unencumbered copyright holder, so they can offer different terms to different people.
The community does still retain a "right to revolution" if we so chose. We could take the MySQL code and create OurSQL or whatever. The GPL gives us that right. The question becomes how many developers and end-users would be willing to abandon MySQL AB and follow that fork.
I think the key difference is that there was currently no way for a DRM'd music file to play on the iPod. Alternately, you could Real's Music Store as the independent program in question, and if that store only sells DRM'd files, then there is no way for it to interoperate with FairPlay / iPod.
You do raise an interesting point, one that I have attempted to answer. I don't know if there's case law on your question, or if it would have to be adjudicated. I do know that conflicts and questions like this are inevitable when you have poorly-written (or poorly-intentioned) laws like the DMCA.
The executive summary: Real most assuredly circumvented "technological access control measures" in the creation of Harmony. However, under Sec. 1201 (f)(1) of the DMCA this is explictly allowed if the sole purpose is previously unavailable interoperation with an independent software program.
Their circumvention allows the interoperation of the iPod with the Real music store. This interoperation is achieved by creating a copy of FairPlay on mp3s sold by Real. The consumer themself is not circumventing a thing.
Yes, Real sickens me as a company. But this situation should be about the law, not about company reputations.
I included "fully" because I honestly do want to see Microsoft get hurt by this Eolas flap.
Is that right of me? No, I don't think it is, and hopefully in time I'll be able to suppress this dangerously passionate hatred of the company that I have.
Reason should prevail over emotion in an issue such as this. The trick is ensuring that happens.
I'm sure we're going to get several insightful jokes about Slashdot's collective head exploding due to two evils (software patents and Microsoft) coming together in a single article.
After all, who are we supposed to root for?
I believe the key in this situation is remembering that your belief in a right is perhaps best shown in whether you are willing to afford that right to an enemy.
Is the right to develop software free from the unneeded burden and litigation threat of software patents important to us?
I believe it is, and as such I cannot fully get behind the offensive use of software patents, even against an enemy such as Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
I have no idea how you came to the (inaccurate) conclusion that I was a dualist. God is all-powerful, He simply chooses not to exercise that power and respect many of our choices.
I have no idea why He chooses to respect certain choices and not step in. I don't claim to know that.
Your terrorist analogy breaks down because you're blaming God for our sin. We don't have to sin. God didn't create us so that we are programmed to automatically sin. You could hypothetically go your entire life without sinning.
God did not point mankind down the path of damnation. Re-read Genesis. We were in a true and loving relationships with God until we (not to be confused with God) screwed it up.
If this conversation is of value to you I will be more than happy to continue it.
- Neil Wehneman
How is Christ forcing love? Because He chooses to respect your opportunity to ignore Him?
Yes, you choose to ignore Him at your own peril, but that's due to our actions, not His. Your referenced verse in Mark is simply telling us that we "shall be damned" because of our own actions.
This isn't a case of God feeling spurned and taking his toys and going home. This is a case of us not having the right to play with the toys to begin with, and acceptance through Christ being the only way.
- Neil Wehneman
The image that I consider when looking at Hell is that of an individual who drops an easy, game-winning touchdown in the Super Bowl as time expires. He sits there, pounding his fist into the ground, knowing that he had a chance to do the right thing but failed. Repeat that feeling for all eternity.
Fire and brimstone isn't required, but I don't dogmatically claim one way or the other about the general ambience of Hell.
- Neil Wehneman
Actually, I explained some of the "doublethink theology" in a few paragraphs. It'd be shorter but I wanted it to be more than just bullet-points.
My earlier post in the discussion.
I'm not trying to be confrontational, but since you and others have brought up some valid points I've aimed to provide a legitimate answer for you.
- Neil Wehneman
Actually, consider God a libertarian. He set up a system where you have the choice to love Him or not. It's your call. In Romans, Paul is simply remarking the obvious: all of us have chosen at some point not to love Him.
This unavoidableness that you complain about isn't God's fault. To remove the capacity to walk away from Him is to remove from us the option of loving Him, as love without free will is rape.
God is still very much in charge. It's just that He loved us enough to give us the choice of loving Him, and when we choose to walk away He has loved us enough to die in our place so that we can walk back.
I don't view Hell primarily as punishment. I view it as respect for choices made. If you wish to deny God then He has enough respect and love for you to honor that choice. God, by His perfect nature, can only be in true relationship with that which is also perfect. I'm not perfect, as I've chosen to walk away from God (ie "sin"). However, through the voluntary human death and resurrection of God I am able to be made perfect once this life is over. That way I am able to be in a perfect relationship with a perfect being.
Those who freely chose to reject that relationship have their choice respected, and they are separated from God on a permanent basis.
Does this make sense?
- Neil Wehneman
You make some valid points, and I think we really are on the same page.
If working on cars was scientifically shown to cause such types of harm that we have collectively decided is worthy of regulation, would you agree that working on cars should be regulated?
That's what I'm saying in my comment. If (and that's a heck of an if) internet porn could be shown to not only cause harm, but also a harm of a type that we choose to regulate, then we should consider that regulation. But if that harm has not been shown (which would be true of all of your examples) then we shouldn't regulate.
However, the argument for regulation would have to be quite compelling as we are in fact restricting personal liberty.
As to my personal morality, I would like to see internet porn disappear. However, I'm not going to advocate heavy regulation of said internet porn (ie imposing my morality) until the secular tests enunciated above are fulfilled.
- Neil Wehneman
First, my background. I am an Evangelical Christian, as well as a future law student. I vote Republican more often than Democrat (not particularly liking either party), but am also a financial supporter of the EFF.
Do I believe pornography to be morally wrong? Without question. Do I believe pornography should be heavily regulated beyond how it currently is? Not necessarily.
My default position on any issue is "Show love, and respect personal liberty." The first aspect is inviolable, as God incarnated in Jesus directly commanded us to love Him and others, setting this as the most important consideration in any situation.
As to the second aspect, at heart I'm a Libertarian. However, there are many situations where personal liberty should not be respected. Your personal liberty to fire a shotgun should not be allowed when I am standing directly in front of said shotgun. Here, the consideration overriding your personal liberty is the harm done to others. (Our consideration of showing love incarnates itself by respecting human dignity in punishment that is humane and, when possible, rehabilitative.)
So let's apply these two principles to a third. Specifically, Christianity's political-legal struggles are more successful when the Christian stance is argued from the same secular assumptions that are largely shared by the other side.
Beating a Bible may produce (what I hold to be) Truth, but that "evidence" is inadmissable in a court under our current interpretation of the Establishment Clause (a discussion in and of itself). So Christianity needs to divorce the morality play from this and show the secular manifestations of harm produced by pornography. The current tactics fail to show love to the "other side" by, quite frankly, insulting your intelligence.
Coming up with new jargon like "erototoxins" or whatever is worthless without science to back it up. If there is a medical basis, using established tests for addiction, to the argument that pornography feeds into itself and leads to self-destructive behavior and other costs that society is unwilling to absorb, then we need to see that medical basis clearly presented.
A complimentary line of reasoning might be similar to that used against tobacco companies: the product is addictive (to a point society is not willing to tolerate) and individuals are not necessarily aware of that addiction.
But screaming "this leads to masturbation!" is not going to get us anywhere.
I would personally love to see less pornography on the Internet at large, as I know firsthand the destruction to self-control and personal relationships that it can bring.
But we cannot sacrifice personal liberty in the process without a compelling reason. I do not believe that compelling reason has yet been articulated under secular reasoning.
- Neil Wehneman
Uhm, you are factually incorrect.
The Strawberry Shortcake pic was SATIRE, not PARODY. Parody is when you use someone's art to make fun of the original artist, while with satire you use someone's art to make fun of a third party.
Parody is strongly protected speech, while satire is less strongly protected. In the case you are referencing Strawberry Shortcake was being used to make fun of American McGee, who was a third party. Hence, it was not parody, but satire.
I believe there may have been a trademark issue as well (don't have time to research the case), but the pic was not as protected on free speech grounds as you claim it to be.
All that said, I do applaud PA for their work on that. It was without question art.
- Neil Wehneman
I'm not doubting that you're correct.
But as I said in the write-up: "what the teenagers may think, or even may have largely experienced themselves, is irrelevant to the rating."
The standard for the rating concerns parents, not children. We can argue that the rating should include expectations of children, but for now it does not.
- Neil Wehneman
At the end of my write-up I end up deciding that the NC-17 would be justified, and since it's the industry voluntarily doing it (and not the government) there isn't really a free speech issue.
There are two points on which my argument turns: first, that "those both under and over 17 are probably used to seeing vaginal sex referenced and occuring in mainstream commercial films, but are not used to seeing oral sex occuring." That fact would trigger "a film that most parents will consider patently too adult for their youngsters under 17."
The second is that self-regulation, under the implicit threat of governmental regulation if self-regulation doesn't occur, is not indirect censorship. And even if it were, it's only partial censorship, as consenting adults still have access to the film.
- Neil Wehneman
Sorry to reply to myself, but I didn't include the link with the original news story about the NC-17.
:).
" Puppet oral sex goes against grain for US censors "
I have that link (and others) in my own write-up, but I realize that not everyone is going to read that. So now you have the separate link
- Neil Wehneman
This movie almost got an NC-17 for having simulated oral sex between the marionettes.
Feel free to read my thoughts and pseudo-legal analysis on the subject.
I actually ended up endorsing a different position than I expected going in. However, my argument would be different if I viewed "as indirect censorship the government's long standing threat of the forced general labeling of movies absent industry self-regulation" (to quote myself).
- Neil Wehneman
About a week ago Lawrence Lessig mentioned a new book called Promises to Keep . The book, written by Prof. William Fisher, chronicles a bit of entertainment industry history and the various "alternatives we face for protecting copyright in a digital age" (to use Lessig's phrase).
Chapter Six is freely available (66-page PDF), and in that chapter an alternative compensation system proposed by Fisher (not entirely unlike Von Lohmann's from the main article) is outlined in excruciating detail. This detail includes specific cost and savings estimates.
What makes Fisher's proposal interesting is that he also includes a mechanism to allow derivative works to be created, and for both deriving and derived authors to be compensated.
- Neil Wehneman
OK, this isn't on Half-Life 2, but it is on the concept of pre-loading / pre-releasing aspects of a game.
One thing I've never understood is why the publishers of highly anticipated role-playing games (I'm thinking Baldur's Gate and NeverWinter Nights here) don't pre-release the character generator.
By the time a specific release date has been set, the character formats should be firmly decided. Allowing players (or potential players!) to pre-create their characters is only going to create buzz and give people a reason to want to put those characters to use. It's a realizable benefit for the publisher without a significant financial cost.
But alas, I have never seen this happen.
- Neil Wehneman
Note to large organized groups of citizens which have the capability to buy or strongarm enough congresscritters
That's why organizations such as the EFF work to "strongarm" our legislators through education and appropriate persuasian.
Financially and morally support them (and organizations like them) if these issues matter to you.
- Neil Wehneman
It's all about price fixing in the end. And it's legal. Don't you just love it?
To quote Larry Lessig...
Note to citizens: We're permitted to change the law.
- Neil Wehneman
I have just written MySQL AB requesting some documentation so I can explore the issue more in depth. The text of what I sent follows.
1 5183229987).
- Neil Wehneman
*****
I am a senior at The Ohio State University in Information Systems, and will be entering law school in twelve months. My area of focus within law school will by copyrights, patents, and the intersection of technology and law.
There appears to be a significant amount of confusion within the community in regards to how MySQL AB handles licensing, and which situations require which licenses.
I have previously written on licenses, specifically analyzing the Creative Commons Public License line by line (http://fallinggrace.com/article.php?story=200408
I would like to examine and explain to the community in detail the interaction between the different licenses (and obligations) that MySQL AB makes available.
All writers carry bias, and I will partially explain mine now. I believe MySQL AB to be a company that has created and championed a business model that is innovative and allows for both Free Software / Open-Source ideals to be fulfilled alongside traditional fudiciary obligations.
I believe the confusion to lie with the (forgivable) ignorance of the community at large. My goal is to lessen that ignorance and allow the community to focus on more important battles and not internal bickering.
To aid in writing this paper, I would appreciate the following (either as email attachments or hyperlinks):
1) Full text of the "MySQL Pro" license
2) Full text of the "MySQL Classic" license
3) Agreements required of non-MySQL AB programmers who wish to contribute to the authoritative code-base
4) Any and all other licenses, contracts, or agreements that you believe would aid in effectively writing a paper such as this
I thank you in advance for your time and assistance. I may be contacted by phone or email if you have questions or comments.
- Neil Wehneman
*****
If the people who contribute the code affirmatively grant MySQL AB copyright upon it, then yes, MySQL AB can do what they want.
Without that affirmative consent, no, MySQL AB could not do this. MySQL AB collects that consent before adding contributions into the authoritative code-base.
Those who do not wish to give MySQL AB consent to re-license have the "right of revolution" to fork the MySQL code-base and call it something else.
MySQL AB retains copyright over the MySQL codebase because they require that copyright to contributions be assigned to MySQL AB. MySQL AB then takes that newly added to codebase and releases it under the GPL.
- Neil Wehneman
Of courrse, it doesn't help that MySQL AB really does try to do the above.
This is not necessarily directed at you, but I think a lot of people don't fully understand how MySQL AB operates in regards to copyright / GPL.
MySQL AB offers the MySQL code to all comers under the GPL. If you want to use the GPL'd code under the terms of the GPL, it's right there waiting for you.
If you wish to use the MySQL code in a way that is incompatible with the GPL, you have the option of purchasing a non-GPL license.
MySQL AB accomplishes this by requiring anyone who wishes to contribute code to the authoritative codebase to assign copyright to MySQL AB. (I have not read the exact verbage used by MySQL AB, but I will for a future project examining their business model.)
This assignment allows MySQL AB to offer GPL'd code under non-GPL terms for a license fee. After all, MySQL AB is the unencumbered copyright holder, so they can offer different terms to different people.
The community does still retain a "right to revolution" if we so chose. We could take the MySQL code and create OurSQL or whatever. The GPL gives us that right. The question becomes how many developers and end-users would be willing to abandon MySQL AB and follow that fork.
- Neil Wehneman
I think the key difference is that there was currently no way for a DRM'd music file to play on the iPod. Alternately, you could Real's Music Store as the independent program in question, and if that store only sells DRM'd files, then there is no way for it to interoperate with FairPlay / iPod.
You do raise an interesting point, one that I have attempted to answer. I don't know if there's case law on your question, or if it would have to be adjudicated. I do know that conflicts and questions like this are inevitable when you have poorly-written (or poorly-intentioned) laws like the DMCA.
- Neil Wehneman
I'm not understanding what it is you're asking.
If you could rephrase or restate, I'd be more than happy to share my thoughts (for whatever those may be worth).
- Neil Wehneman
Good point.
My argument would stand if you replaced "iPod" with "FairPlay" as the program that is being interoperated with.
- Neil Wehnneman
When the original Harmony story broke, I created a write-up explaining what Real had done and how it was legal under the DMCA.
The full write-up is available here.
The executive summary: Real most assuredly circumvented "technological access control measures" in the creation of Harmony. However, under Sec. 1201 (f)(1) of the DMCA this is explictly allowed if the sole purpose is previously unavailable interoperation with an independent software program.
Their circumvention allows the interoperation of the iPod with the Real music store. This interoperation is achieved by creating a copy of FairPlay on mp3s sold by Real. The consumer themself is not circumventing a thing.
Yes, Real sickens me as a company. But this situation should be about the law, not about company reputations.
- Neil Wehneman
I included "fully" because I honestly do want to see Microsoft get hurt by this Eolas flap.
Is that right of me? No, I don't think it is, and hopefully in time I'll be able to suppress this dangerously passionate hatred of the company that I have.
Reason should prevail over emotion in an issue such as this. The trick is ensuring that happens.
- Neil Wehneman
I'm sure we're going to get several insightful jokes about Slashdot's collective head exploding due to two evils (software patents and Microsoft) coming together in a single article.
After all, who are we supposed to root for?
I believe the key in this situation is remembering that your belief in a right is perhaps best shown in whether you are willing to afford that right to an enemy.
Is the right to develop software free from the unneeded burden and litigation threat of software patents important to us?
I believe it is, and as such I cannot fully get behind the offensive use of software patents, even against an enemy such as Microsoft.
- Neil Wehneman
P.S. Have you donated to the EFF recently?