3) That it is legal and Constitutional to restrict a tool because it is used to commit illegal acts. (Example: People commit murders with hammers. Should hammers be made illegal?) The Constitution clearly says otherwise.
Where, exactly, does the constitution say that?
Article III and Amendment IX.
While I agree with this legal brief, which argues that outlawing DeCSS is unconstitutional; I do not understand how Article III applies, nor how the ninth amendment would apply. I also do not understand how Article III and the ninth amendment apply to your general statement, that it is unconstitutional "to restrict a tool because it is used to commit illegal acts".
The ninth amendment vaguely states that we retain rights above and beyond those which the Bill of Rights explicitly mentions. Certainly, this must have limitations. Are you claiming that congress can not take away any rights unless the constitution specifically grants them the power to? If so, note that Article I, section 8, clause 8, indeed grants congress the power to craft copyright law. So, why would the ninth amendment apply?
I have no idea what the heck you're referring to in Article III.
I do not see the constitution making this issue at all clear.
1) The burden of proof is on them to submit conclusive evidence that DeCSS was used to make these illegal copies, as opposed to the numerous other ways illegal copies can be made
This is done in the district court. That trial is over. In that trial, Universal Studios was unable to provide a single example of DeCSS being used to pirate movies.
3) That it is legal and Constitutional to restrict a tool because it is used to commit illegal acts. (Example: People commit murders with hammers. Should hammers be made illegal?) The Constitution clearly says otherwise.
Where, exactly, does the constitution say that? If you are refering to the second amendment, why would it apply in the DeCSS case?
Also remember that, at least in America, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant doesn't even have to open his mouth.
That may be true in criminal trials, but you do not have the right to remain silent in civil trials (like DeCSS).
People on/. are constantly slamming companies for hiding behind laws like DMCA instead of building better copy protection/encryption into their products.
Their products should not be encrypted at all! In my opinion, encrypted works should not enjoy the benefits of copyright. Copyrights have a purpose: to promote the progress of science and useful arts. All copyrighted works are eventually supposed to enter the public domain. If content providers were to truely make effective encryption, their products would never enter the public domain, thus disappearing from history. Such a result, does not serve the purpose of copyright.
The hysteria surrounding 'viral' spreading of copyrighted works, is just that, hysteria. One need look no futher than the software industry to see that copy protection is not necessary. The software industry remains extremely profitable, even though people can, and do, pirate thousands of products.
Many people, myself included, pay for their software. We don't pirate other people's work, because we know that it is unethical. If you wish to prosecute the pirates, go ahead, but don't destroy history and fair-use rights just because some people are selfish.
What's it going to be, folks?
The answer is education and well-balanced copyright law. I think you would see far less piracy, if the law were balanced and people were to understand the importance of copyrights. The simple fact is, people have trouble understanding oppresive laws; and even more trouble respecting those laws.
A server at Randall Publishing has attacked my machine 16 times so far. I just sent in an application to work their. It says:
Hi,
I would like to work in your Information Technology department. The first thing I would do, is delete the Code Red worm from your web server, and apply a month-old patch to protect it from future exploits.
Approximate index, then search...
on
Share The Pi!
·
· Score: 1
couldn't you in theory find a specific position where pi prints out say, the Max Payne ISO, and distribute that position to friends?
I've been thinking about this. As many others have pointed out, the index would take as much space as the original data.
However, suppose you can generate a short mathematical expression that will put you in the nieghborhood of the index. Let's call this point A.
Now, find point B close to the index (perhaps 1000 digits) such that it contains a string, S, which does not occur between point A and point B-1. Now all you have to do, is note the offset from point B and the length of the data.
To decompress, you compute the expression for point A, search pi starting at A, and stopping when you find S. You are now at point B. Compute the offset from B and generate your data.
So, if you could get your expression for point A down to a few bytes, and your string for point B down to a few bytes, you would indeed have incredible compression. Of course, the search for S could take almost as long as the compressing the data.
To improve upon this idea, instead of using pi, what if you could find a function with the following properties:
generates every possible number sequence
For every unique number sequence, there is a string, S, near the unique number sequence and appearing after an easily represented index, I.
There is exactly one occurance of S between I and the interesting number sequence.
Searching pi until you find that right position that matches your Max Payne ISO, which could be located on the far end of infinity.
but it I suppose it'll be turning up in new and exciting places.
Web advertising! If you're quick, maybe you can get a patent!:(
BTW, has anyone 'heard' a web advertisement? With all the complaints about people ignoring web advertisements, I'm really surprised advertisers don't play a sound, or cite their name with sound.
Human resources people are very picky about which resumes they forward to managers. If some script kiddie claims to be an expert in all the buzzwords, HR forwards their resume. If another applicant knows all the concepts upon which those buzzwords are based, their resume goes in the trash (HR doesn't know the difference).
How about if a couple thousand people each purchase 100 advertisements on a search engine. When someone searches for "Adobe" or "Mueller", they would see an ad that brings them to www.freesklyarov.org.
It would probably be easier to redirect your users to the protest page. And if you want people to come back, you should probably have a link to the normal page.
If copyright is dumped, you might as well dump the entire film industry and all the movie theatres that play them.
When you walk into a video store, what section do you look at first? The new releases? Most people I know, rent new releases, even though older movies cost 1/3 as much and you can keep them 5 times as long.
Studios spend more on marketing than they do on the film. So, while eliminating copyright may kill the film industry, a short copyright (perhaps four years) would differ very little from the status quo.
Funny, I don't believe Microsoft has ever forced anyone I know to pay them money, not even my company.
Read the findings of fact from U.S. v. Microsoft. Microsoft, in an attempt to prevent IBM from shipping Lotus SmartSuite with their computers, conducted an audit, and refused to license Windows 95 to IBM until the audit was resolved. The story begins at paragraph 115. In paragraph 125 we see that Microsoft extorted $31 million from IBM.
The thing to do is not shout and wave banners for a one time shot on TV, but to seek out mainstream journalists and get them to relay the Sklyarov story to a larger, more receptive audience.
This brings up a bigger issue. How else can we get the word out? Seeing as the mainstream media has a vested interest in hiding the truth, it seems kind of pointless to expect them to assist in the DMCA's demise.
Aside from mainstream media, what other ways can someone spread an idea? The distribution channel I keep thinking of, is churches. Most churches are part of a larger organization, which can rapidly deploy news to a very receptive audiance. Most churches are likely to favor their parishoners over corporate profits. If an entire religion (or set of religions) becomes empassioned over an issue, the politicians will listen.
Some other distribution channels include:
Writing free software that downloads advertisements.
Distro "A" includes shared LGPL lib "B". Company "C" releases closed-source binary "D" that dynamically links against "B".
But, wait! Distro "A"'s *latest* version uses a new version of "B" that is binary-compatible with the previous version, yet is released under the GPL.
This is obsurd! Closed source "D" was compiled for LGPL "B". Just because it happens to be compatible with GPL "B" does not suddenly make it a GPL violator.
If we were to take your example a little further, let's assume WINE is distributed under the GPL (I know, it's actually under the MIT License). In your example, any non-GPL software that runs on WINE would suddenly violate the GPL.
From another perspective, suppose you write a program which uses the Microsoft Foundation Classes (MFC). Are you prohibited from releasing that software under the GPL because MFC is not GPL'd?
"They've got their radical factions, like the Ruby Ridge or Waco types," who want to share all content for free, said Judith Platt, a spokeswoman for the Association of American Publishers.
In related news, the AAP set up camp outside the Library of Congress today. Snipers have positioned themselves around the compound, in the event that dissidents attempt to launch stolen content at the AAP.
"These radicals are running the world's largest content fencing ring", said spokeswoman Judith Platt. "If they had just destroyed the content when we asked them to, we wouldn't have to take these drastic measures."
Peter Jovanovich, CEO of Pearson Education, parent company to Prentice Hall, has set up bonfires in anticipation of the dissidents' surrender. "I had hoped they would surrender peacefully," said Jovanovich, "but instead, they shouted profanities and told us to take our tank home."
In what Jovanovich calls, "a complete disregard for publisher's rights", the dissidents have hung a sign stating: "Information Wants to be Free!"
Criminals physically robbing homes who were shot by the owner have actually won civil cases for the pain and suffering of the gunshot received while commiting a crime. (Which is why you should shoot to kill.)
If you kill someone for breaking into your home, you will find yourself in front of a judge explaining how you knew the intruder was trying to rob you. Killing someone to protect yourself is an affirmative defense. The burden of proof is on the defendend.
It is entirely possible that the intruder was there to report an accident, call an ambulance, or thought they were walking into their friend's new house, but were really just lost.
It is a degrading and humiliating practice (in many instances, someone monitors the entire process to make sure no one cheats). It invades a person's privacy (drug tests can turn up more than drugs. They can also turn up prescription medications and medical conditions). Drug tests can produce false-positives, thus incriminating a completely innocent person. Drug tests can incriminate someone simply because they have been in the proximity of a marijuana or methamphetamine smoker. Drug tests are a slippery slope that will lead to further erosion of people's rights.
This isn't the police coming into your home and taking a urine sample, this is voluntary (hey, no one said you had to work there)
How voluntary is it, when every employer in the area requires it? Is it really voluntary when the only way to survive without submitting to the test, is to steal for a living?
I mean, if someone has enough disrespect for the law and for the safety of others to start using stuff like cocaine, I don't see why they would have more respect for their boss, their coworkers, or the rules of the company.
Just because someone won't take the test, doesn't mean they use drugs!!! And I certainly wouldn't trust someone just because they passed a drug test.
Furthermore, even if someone does use drugs, they are not necessarily untrustworthy. How many people used alcohol during prohibition? How many people violate sodomy laws? Adultory laws? How many people risk their lives to scale the side of a mountain? Can none of these people be trusted?
According to recent anti-tobacco advertisements, nicotine is as addictive as heroin. Is your life in danger because your co-workers are desperate to get their next nicotine "fix"?
This isn't the company going through your private posessions,
Apparently, you don't work for Wal-Mart; where the company reserves the right to dig through your possesions to make sure you aren't pilfering from them.
they are simply analysing that which you give away for free every time you visit the company john.
First of all, the company john is required to have walls so that you have some degree of privacy. Second, claiming that your excrement has no degree of privacy is like giving a reporter, neighbor, family member, or indeed, your employer the right to test for medications, medical conditions, and genes, as well as drugs.
The rights of the individual CAN be taken to an extreme, and that is when society suffers.
In this case, you are taking the rights of an employer to an extreme.
There is little evidence that drug tests actually help employers. The evidence to support drug tests is typically done by drug testing companies.
The National Acadamy of the Sciences conducted an extensive cost/benefit analysis of employee drug testing. Their conclusion was that (with the exception of alcohol or safety-critical tasks like driving) drug tests do not help the employer at all.
I think employers are simply over-reacting to a popular craze (the war on drugs), and throwing away our rights to get a small reduction in insurance costs (reductions that are offered to lower health care expenses).
Re:Make companies pay for software they can't use?
on
Microsoft and the GPL
·
· Score: 1
Microsoft is correct in this case: since companies fund the government, the software created with those funds should be as accessible as possible.
People fund the government, either directly (income taxes), or indirectly (higher price for consumer goods).
You are correct that software created with tax money should be as accessible as possible, which is why the government can not hold a copyright! Any tax-funded changes made to a GPL'ed product, are available for free. You just have to seperate out the government funded portions from the non-government funded portions.
The GPL certainly doesn't allow that, because companies aren't allowed to use code governed by it in their own projects (unless, of course, they open the source, which you can't force companies to do).
Indeed, congress can force companies to open their code. All it takes is a simple ammendment to title 17 of the United States Code. Congress would be well within their constitutional rights to do so. I just wanted to point that out. I'm not actually suggesting it.
So you want companies like Microsoft paying to fund software that only benefits you as a user? That's the definition of a pork barrel project.
You, Microsoft, and any one else can benefit from using GPL'ed software. As long as you don't modify the code, its use and copying are free and without restriction.
Many businesses can benefit from distributing GPL'ed software bundled with another product.
Software companies can sell support for GPL'ed software, and market themselves as actively improving the product.
Finally, as indicated above, the government-funded code has no copyright and any one can use it without restriction. Closed source companies can take the tax-funded code and incorporate it into their own products. Their only restriction, is that if they wish to close source non-government-funded code, they must get permission from the person(s) who dontated their time to the GPL'ed project.
In summary, upgrading GPL'ed code is far better than outsourcing software development to a closed source company. When outsourcing development, the contracting company, and whichever government agency funded development, are the only ones to benefit. That, AC, is the definition of a pork barrel project.
Shouldn't it be obvious that content providers want some protection for their works and IBM is simply participating in planning to meet these demands?
IBM sells hard drives to customers. Customers do not want CPRM. They want the freedom to use their hard drive any way they choose. Why should my hard drive be crippled just because some third party (who has absolutely nothing to do with my purchase) is paranoid about copyright infringment? Furthermore, why should I have to pay extra just so IBM can license the crippling technology?
Finally, why is this crippling technology needed? Because a few people pirate software and music? It's not like every software and media company is going bankrupt over piracy. If viral piracy were truely a problem, CPRM would have been implemented a couple decades ago, and there would be no way that Microsoft would release their.NET source code.
The irony is that the golden goose that made the business side of the recording arts what it is (technology) is what is going to sink it.
Yeah, just like being able to copy any game, utility, or productivity tool has destroyed the software industry.
Amongst all these debates about copyright infringement, I don't understand why nobody mentions software. Software piracy has existed almost as long as computers, yet the industry has thrived! The MPAA's and RIAA's paranoid propaganda are just greedy, self-serving lies.
Slashdot Mirror
Here is an actual television news station's report of the Code Red II Worm. Apparently nobody told them that the Internet has no borders.
While I agree with this legal brief, which argues that outlawing DeCSS is unconstitutional; I do not understand how Article III applies, nor how the ninth amendment would apply. I also do not understand how Article III and the ninth amendment apply to your general statement, that it is unconstitutional "to restrict a tool because it is used to commit illegal acts".
The ninth amendment vaguely states that we retain rights above and beyond those which the Bill of Rights explicitly mentions. Certainly, this must have limitations. Are you claiming that congress can not take away any rights unless the constitution specifically grants them the power to? If so, note that Article I, section 8, clause 8, indeed grants congress the power to craft copyright law. So, why would the ninth amendment apply?
I have no idea what the heck you're referring to in Article III.
I do not see the constitution making this issue at all clear.
This is done in the district court. That trial is over. In that trial, Universal Studios was unable to provide a single example of DeCSS being used to pirate movies.
3) That it is legal and Constitutional to restrict a tool because it is used to commit illegal acts. (Example: People commit murders with hammers. Should hammers be made illegal?) The Constitution clearly says otherwise.
Where, exactly, does the constitution say that? If you are refering to the second amendment, why would it apply in the DeCSS case?
Also remember that, at least in America, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant doesn't even have to open his mouth.
That may be true in criminal trials, but you do not have the right to remain silent in civil trials (like DeCSS).
Their products should not be encrypted at all! In my opinion, encrypted works should not enjoy the benefits of copyright. Copyrights have a purpose: to promote the progress of science and useful arts. All copyrighted works are eventually supposed to enter the public domain. If content providers were to truely make effective encryption, their products would never enter the public domain, thus disappearing from history. Such a result, does not serve the purpose of copyright.
The hysteria surrounding 'viral' spreading of copyrighted works, is just that, hysteria. One need look no futher than the software industry to see that copy protection is not necessary. The software industry remains extremely profitable, even though people can, and do, pirate thousands of products.
Many people, myself included, pay for their software. We don't pirate other people's work, because we know that it is unethical. If you wish to prosecute the pirates, go ahead, but don't destroy history and fair-use rights just because some people are selfish.
What's it going to be, folks?
The answer is education and well-balanced copyright law. I think you would see far less piracy, if the law were balanced and people were to understand the importance of copyrights. The simple fact is, people have trouble understanding oppresive laws; and even more trouble respecting those laws.
couldn't you in theory find a specific position where pi prints out say, the Max Payne ISO, and distribute that position to friends?
I've been thinking about this. As many others have pointed out, the index would take as much space as the original data.
However, suppose you can generate a short mathematical expression that will put you in the nieghborhood of the index. Let's call this point A.
Now, find point B close to the index (perhaps 1000 digits) such that it contains a string, S, which does not occur between point A and point B-1. Now all you have to do, is note the offset from point B and the length of the data.
To decompress, you compute the expression for point A, search pi starting at A, and stopping when you find S. You are now at point B. Compute the offset from B and generate your data.
So, if you could get your expression for point A down to a few bytes, and your string for point B down to a few bytes, you would indeed have incredible compression. Of course, the search for S could take almost as long as the compressing the data.
To improve upon this idea, instead of using pi, what if you could find a function with the following properties:
Searching pi until you find that right position that matches your Max Payne ISO, which could be located on the far end of infinity.
Good luck!
Web advertising! If you're quick, maybe you can get a patent! :(
BTW, has anyone 'heard' a web advertisement? With all the complaints about people ignoring web advertisements, I'm really surprised advertisers don't play a sound, or cite their name with sound.
As well as Konqueror. Mozilla, on the other hand, brings the window up slow enough that you can go to another page while you wait.
As another poster noted, there will be a record number or people posting without reading the article. Please read section 4: There Is No Desperate Shortage of Computer Programmers.
Human resources people are very picky about which resumes they forward to managers. If some script kiddie claims to be an expert in all the buzzwords, HR forwards their resume. If another applicant knows all the concepts upon which those buzzwords are based, their resume goes in the trash (HR doesn't know the difference).
How about if a couple thousand people each purchase 100 advertisements on a search engine. When someone searches for "Adobe" or "Mueller", they would see an ad that brings them to www.freesklyarov.org.
It would probably be easier to redirect your users to the protest page. And if you want people to come back, you should probably have a link to the normal page.
Is this why my internet link keeps going down? Darned pesky protesters! I thought it was just because my ISP sucked.
By the way, what do you suppose they're saying? Maybe they're modulating the down time and encoding a signal in it. I'll have to look into that...
When you walk into a video store, what section do you look at first? The new releases? Most people I know, rent new releases, even though older movies cost 1/3 as much and you can keep them 5 times as long.
Studios spend more on marketing than they do on the film. So, while eliminating copyright may kill the film industry, a short copyright (perhaps four years) would differ very little from the status quo.
Read the findings of fact from U.S. v. Microsoft. Microsoft, in an attempt to prevent IBM from shipping Lotus SmartSuite with their computers, conducted an audit, and refused to license Windows 95 to IBM until the audit was resolved. The story begins at paragraph 115. In paragraph 125 we see that Microsoft extorted $31 million from IBM.
This brings up a bigger issue. How else can we get the word out? Seeing as the mainstream media has a vested interest in hiding the truth, it seems kind of pointless to expect them to assist in the DMCA's demise.
Aside from mainstream media, what other ways can someone spread an idea? The distribution channel I keep thinking of, is churches. Most churches are part of a larger organization, which can rapidly deploy news to a very receptive audiance. Most churches are likely to favor their parishoners over corporate profits. If an entire religion (or set of religions) becomes empassioned over an issue, the politicians will listen.
Some other distribution channels include:
Well, let's pray they won't have any *future* use for them!
Distro "A" includes shared LGPL lib "B". Company "C" releases closed-source binary "D" that dynamically links against "B".
But, wait! Distro "A"'s *latest* version uses a new version of "B" that is binary-compatible with the previous version, yet is released under the GPL.
This is obsurd! Closed source "D" was compiled for LGPL "B". Just because it happens to be compatible with GPL "B" does not suddenly make it a GPL violator.
If we were to take your example a little further, let's assume WINE is distributed under the GPL (I know, it's actually under the MIT License). In your example, any non-GPL software that runs on WINE would suddenly violate the GPL.
From another perspective, suppose you write a program which uses the Microsoft Foundation Classes (MFC). Are you prohibited from releasing that software under the GPL because MFC is not GPL'd?
In related news, the AAP set up camp outside the Library of Congress today. Snipers have positioned themselves around the compound, in the event that dissidents attempt to launch stolen content at the AAP.
"These radicals are running the world's largest content fencing ring", said spokeswoman Judith Platt. "If they had just destroyed the content when we asked them to, we wouldn't have to take these drastic measures."
Peter Jovanovich, CEO of Pearson Education, parent company to Prentice Hall, has set up bonfires in anticipation of the dissidents' surrender. "I had hoped they would surrender peacefully," said Jovanovich, "but instead, they shouted profanities and told us to take our tank home."
In what Jovanovich calls, "a complete disregard for publisher's rights", the dissidents have hung a sign stating: "Information Wants to be Free!"
So how much bandwidth does a typical RC5 client use? This is what half the people here want to know.
If you kill someone for breaking into your home, you will find yourself in front of a judge explaining how you knew the intruder was trying to rob you. Killing someone to protect yourself is an affirmative defense. The burden of proof is on the defendend.
It is entirely possible that the intruder was there to report an accident, call an ambulance, or thought they were walking into their friend's new house, but were really just lost.
It is a degrading and humiliating practice (in many instances, someone monitors the entire process to make sure no one cheats). It invades a person's privacy (drug tests can turn up more than drugs. They can also turn up prescription medications and medical conditions). Drug tests can produce false-positives, thus incriminating a completely innocent person. Drug tests can incriminate someone simply because they have been in the proximity of a marijuana or methamphetamine smoker. Drug tests are a slippery slope that will lead to further erosion of people's rights.
This isn't the police coming into your home and taking a urine sample, this is voluntary (hey, no one said you had to work there)
How voluntary is it, when every employer in the area requires it? Is it really voluntary when the only way to survive without submitting to the test, is to steal for a living?
I mean, if someone has enough disrespect for the law and for the safety of others to start using stuff like cocaine, I don't see why they would have more respect for their boss, their coworkers, or the rules of the company.
Just because someone won't take the test, doesn't mean they use drugs!!! And I certainly wouldn't trust someone just because they passed a drug test.
Furthermore, even if someone does use drugs, they are not necessarily untrustworthy. How many people used alcohol during prohibition? How many people violate sodomy laws? Adultory laws? How many people risk their lives to scale the side of a mountain? Can none of these people be trusted?
According to recent anti-tobacco advertisements, nicotine is as addictive as heroin. Is your life in danger because your co-workers are desperate to get their next nicotine "fix"?
This isn't the company going through your private posessions,
Apparently, you don't work for Wal-Mart; where the company reserves the right to dig through your possesions to make sure you aren't pilfering from them.
they are simply analysing that which you give away for free every time you visit the company john.
First of all, the company john is required to have walls so that you have some degree of privacy. Second, claiming that your excrement has no degree of privacy is like giving a reporter, neighbor, family member, or indeed, your employer the right to test for medications, medical conditions, and genes, as well as drugs.
The rights of the individual CAN be taken to an extreme, and that is when society suffers.
In this case, you are taking the rights of an employer to an extreme.
There is little evidence that drug tests actually help employers. The evidence to support drug tests is typically done by drug testing companies.
The National Acadamy of the Sciences conducted an extensive cost/benefit analysis of employee drug testing. Their conclusion was that (with the exception of alcohol or safety-critical tasks like driving) drug tests do not help the employer at all.
I think employers are simply over-reacting to a popular craze (the war on drugs), and throwing away our rights to get a small reduction in insurance costs (reductions that are offered to lower health care expenses).
People fund the government, either directly (income taxes), or indirectly (higher price for consumer goods).
You are correct that software created with tax money should be as accessible as possible, which is why the government can not hold a copyright! Any tax-funded changes made to a GPL'ed product, are available for free. You just have to seperate out the government funded portions from the non-government funded portions.
The GPL certainly doesn't allow that, because companies aren't allowed to use code governed by it in their own projects (unless, of course, they open the source, which you can't force companies to do).
Indeed, congress can force companies to open their code. All it takes is a simple ammendment to title 17 of the United States Code. Congress would be well within their constitutional rights to do so. I just wanted to point that out. I'm not actually suggesting it.
So you want companies like Microsoft paying to fund software that only benefits you as a user? That's the definition of a pork barrel project.
Microsoft did not pay a penny in federal income tax last year!
You, Microsoft, and any one else can benefit from using GPL'ed software. As long as you don't modify the code, its use and copying are free and without restriction.
Many businesses can benefit from distributing GPL'ed software bundled with another product.
Software companies can sell support for GPL'ed software, and market themselves as actively improving the product.
Finally, as indicated above, the government-funded code has no copyright and any one can use it without restriction. Closed source companies can take the tax-funded code and incorporate it into their own products. Their only restriction, is that if they wish to close source non-government-funded code, they must get permission from the person(s) who dontated their time to the GPL'ed project.
In summary, upgrading GPL'ed code is far better than outsourcing software development to a closed source company. When outsourcing development, the contracting company, and whichever government agency funded development, are the only ones to benefit. That, AC, is the definition of a pork barrel project.
IBM sells hard drives to customers. Customers do not want CPRM. They want the freedom to use their hard drive any way they choose. Why should my hard drive be crippled just because some third party (who has absolutely nothing to do with my purchase) is paranoid about copyright infringment? Furthermore, why should I have to pay extra just so IBM can license the crippling technology?
Finally, why is this crippling technology needed? Because a few people pirate software and music? It's not like every software and media company is going bankrupt over piracy. If viral piracy were truely a problem, CPRM would have been implemented a couple decades ago, and there would be no way that Microsoft would release their .NET source code.
Isn't Phoenix the same BIOS maker that pushed hard for CPRM? Perhaps not every company is out to shaft everyone, but I'm pretty sure Phoenix is.
Yeah, just like being able to copy any game, utility, or productivity tool has destroyed the software industry.
Amongst all these debates about copyright infringement, I don't understand why nobody mentions software. Software piracy has existed almost as long as computers, yet the industry has thrived! The MPAA's and RIAA's paranoid propaganda are just greedy, self-serving lies.