no offense but try looking at speakers that cost more than 99 bucks.
something in the 400+ range !should! meet your needs. if not, put your own set together.
klipsh and creative's high end speakers are usually highly acclaimed. at least if you believe the reviewers. but ultimately it may not sound as good to you as it did the reviewers due to location differences and noise levels. buy a good set and try it at home.
only that the drivers are obscene, not only to install but they totally overdo it with extras.
you can pare it down to just the drivers and important applets (even then it's a large chunk of drive space) but most users wouldn't even dare click anything but the next button.
that alone isn't enough though. their drivers are buggy as hell and performance in 3d audio is pretty pathetic for it being a dsp-based hw accel. card.
unfortunetly, host-based (read soft/win aka no dsp no hardware accel) sound cards aren't good for gaming. and it wouldn't make sense to get one if you play recent games. they usually only support eax2 or 3 and very poorly compared to creative.
creative is the microsoft or intel of the sound card world but unfortunetly for us, they bought out their competitors and there's little alternative for gaming sound cards. if you do music or other applications then creative never need even enter your vocabulary and you'll be much better off.
except in your example, they are really renting ponies but pretend to sell them outright.
that's the difference.
i am not expecting that an item i buy metamorphize into another item totally. i just want to fully utilze the goods i have purchased... except in this case the manufacturer went out of their way to prevent this.
the manufacturer got my money and i got an item that mostly belongs to the manufacturer.
i shall try to make it a bit more clear what i'm talking about.
it's basically that the manufacturers treat the physical item as a rental instead of a sale.
i have no problem with them renting consoles because that would mean that the customers know what they're dealing with in terms of limitations etc.
but they outright SELL the item to you but treat it as a rental. in rented items, you cannot damage or open up or modify in any way the rentee doesn't approve of.
but you and i and millions of others know, we don't rent consoles when we pay the one time fee of 300-600 bucks.
if the access "circumvention" were easy, i would not complain. each generation of console is becoming increasingly difficult to get to OWN. often having to jump through hoops and opening up the machine and practice your soldering skills.
if they want that much "protection", then call it for what it is, a rental. anything else is outright fraud.
i honestly cannot understand why freedom loving geeks aren't outraged. maybe you don't care specifically about consoles and i can understand that. but what i'm trying to get across is that it is in no way just limited to "game machines".
how many gadgets and devices do you own...err you think you own? without full access to your own property, then for all intents and purposes you are renting the device at the pleasure of the manufacturer. those cell phones, music players, digital cameras, etc all belong to the manufacturers effectively. you may have possession of the physical devices but the real power lies with the company who produced it (and then rented it to you under the guise of selling it).
the manufacturers are smart fellows and can easily come up with a method to allow the machine to check that the game is not copied and still allow customers to own their property. because the alternative is to deprive the real owner of their property and that is a clear cut case of fraud (among other legalese and since ianal...).
actually you can not. in the future, the "security" of the systems will be greatly increased. we've been fortunate that current systems have been rendered back to their true owners but they were due to weaknesses in the design and exploits of buggy sw/hw.
i want them to be fully accessable from the box. these are not rented devices, they are fully bought.
i want to make it illegal to pseudo-rent items (it already is if anyone in congress/courts would follow the law). if you want to rent consoles that don't allow full access, by all means, go ahead.
but to fraudulently SELL merchandise then pretend it's a rental model is extremely unethical (and illegal, even in our messed up legal system).
they have every right to rent and sell, but to sell you and then defend themselves through a non-contract EULA , is not only illegal but is enough to consider them anti-customer and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law (where've you heard that before?).
they have a right to sell merchandise that does not disable full access to said merchandise once i have paid for it.
when it's sitting in their warehouse, they can DRM and lock it up like it's 1999. but when i hand over my money, then by definition, it is no longer theirs.
so no, your argument allows them to sell merchandise that doesn't really belong to the customer who buys it. that's dishonest to say the least and it's unethical business.
by definition, commerce is about both sides getting good property, e.g. the merchant gets non-counterfeit money and the customer gets full access to the merchandise. when it doesn't follow this pattern, bad things happen, in this case property rights erosion.
what you're arguing is to allow businesses to sell you items which you do not fully have access to. which is fine, except you'd have to follow procedure and call it renting. this is not renting by any means, it is called purchasing. you are paying fully the asking price of the item.
that you feel that my capitalization and grammar/spelling warrant more scrutiny, says a lot about your weak position in this discussion.
they punish you anyway. the console manufacturers i mean.
when the ps3/xbox360/revolution come out soon, you can buy one. but when you buy one, even though you paid for the graphics chip, the sound chip, the cpu, the vector/simd processors, the storage units; these are all off-limits to you, THE OWNER.
that means you need to get the company's permission to access your own PROPERTY!
how is this any different than lexmark's position? in fact it's even worse. these COMPUTERS can be so much more and legally you are in the RIGHT to do with them anything you wish, including but not limited to, programming the chips on the units to accomplish any task.
before you rush headlong to tell me "it's their business model"... i'll have to tell you how their business model is of any concern to me. to prevent legal access to your own property under the use of high-grade encryption constitutes a breach of commerce. to make this model work, it requires them to strip you of property rights.
those are your chips they're holding hostage.
and "don't buy from them" is not the answer. because here we have companies that are practicing an unethical business. you don't see gillette requiring high-grade encryption on the razor blade cartridges preventing customers from using it on any other brand of handle. how absurd would that be. software in this respect, follows the same pattern. if you give them the right to block lawful use of software, then also to be consistent you'd have to give them that kind of authority over physical items as well.
don't let them fool you with adjacent arguments about how this is their business model or how they sell the consoles (read computers) at a loss and make it up on game sales. that's a bunch of hogwash. this isn't at all about copying games or not paying for their hard work. because up till now i've only talked about one thing: access to the programmability of the chips. your chips, once you purchase the item. we're not talking about renting here, you have the RIGHT to access those chips.
if they have to sell consoles more expensively, then do so but any business model that deprives you of full access to your own property, is illegal and should be outlawed. this would never hold up under an educated citizenry.
i sincerely have no idea why more people aren't competely outraged over this. you're not renting these devices. you outright buy them. you buy everything, including the right to use the software on the machines. yeah, you purchased a copy of the core system software.
and we're not talking about 8bit microcontrollers (though the principle still applies), these are powerful multimedia processors. you have the right to have full access to those resources. it's not like you broke into IBM's hq and are running programs on their mainframes, this is YOUR property and the bastard companies are denying you your right to access it.
if they can't make money (and there's no reason whatsoever that they can't and still allow end-users to fully have access) then they need to find a business they can or go out of business.
for heaven sakes people, fight for basic rights like property rights or you'll truly regret it in the future.
the right to read comes to mind... but if all text is electronic and you don't and can't own the hardware with full access... it'll make you pine for these days we live in now as the good old days.
oh and btw, there are other ways to prevent "piracy", you don't need to deny the owner their property rights just to outlaw game copying.
just to reiterate, i have no interest in game "piracy", i only want full access to my own hardware. and i'm sure you do too.
then by what authority do they restrict what you can or cannot do with a purchased product?
copyright law is about distribution but you make it sound like that's that.
what would people do with copyrighted products that they cannot use? do people spend tons of money on dvds and cds just for the plastic discs?
no by defintion, under copyright law, you have the right to use what you paid for. and manufacturers/vendors/companies don't have any authority to tell you how and where and when you may view/use things you paid for. they claim they do have the authority, but claiming is not the same as having.
that's just one of the reasons they have DRM and encryption; to undermine the ownership of property and to deceive the public into thinking they need a license to use something you legally and lawfully purchased.
physical products don't need licenses in order to use and software is no different in this respect. just because it's a bunch of bits doesn't invalidate your rights to use your own property how you see fit.
people who argue software is "magical" and have different rules than other kinds of commerce, are the same ones who have fallen, hook line and sinker for the software industry's propoganda.
there is NO contract and you don't need a license to use what you bought.
this is criminal and unethical business is what it is.
people MAY choose to return them to lexmark but they are under no obligation. putting up more reasonably priced ink on store shelves and then trying to deceive people with a pseudo-legal notice that reminds them they are under a contract... what utter bullshit.
and as we can clearly see, the ninth-circuit is obviously not competent enough to realize you don't enter into contracts simply because you open a package. who gives a crap what it says on the outside of the box. you didn't sign anything and are under no obligation to return it.
once the product is sold to you, it belongs solely to you and no one else.
EULA = abomination. period.
to say with a straight face that the manufacturer/vendor/company/merchant has ANY say whatsoever after the transaction has taken place, is looking to get bitchslapped across the face for being a propogandized zombie.
this is low down dishonest, unethical and criminal commerce.
if you like the jail world you're living in, i'm truly happy for you. i only wish the people who have woken up could take a little of what you're smoking. but alas, we now have a responsibility to lead moral and ethical lives. that includes all things, from the micro to the macro.
so no, we won't "get over it". this is OUR fuc*ing world! we're coming to take it back from the real thieves.
it died around 6. you know, when they decided that FMVs were more important than the actual game, and turning it into a giant teeny-bopper soap opera. and 3d gfx that did nothing to enhance the game and only introduced bad camera angles and slower performance.
the same also applies to software products. don't forget, that's where they try and sneak in propoganda that says " software is MAGICAL and laws that govern all other commerce doesn't apply".
hell, tons and tons of slashdotters parrot that line as if it were a god-given right. they don't realize how utterly anti-customer and unethical/illegal it is.
you have EVERY right to access and use software in any manner you see fit. that's what copyright law gives you. copyright law only prevents distribution by anyone other than the copyright holder but it places no restrictions on how you may use it or where you use it.
EULAs are absolutely illegal. in the way illegal used to mean before BRIBEr^H^H lobbyists swarmed over D.C..
copyright law grants you the right to use copies you have purchased in any way you see fit.
it's not hacking. so stop using it in the sense that you don't own the item, including the physical or the software.
it's ALL yours.
stop believing their lies.
you have EVERY RIGHT to access your bought and paid for device in any way you choose.
it is outright illegal to prevent customers using the products they own in any way.
now we just need some competent judges and some unbribed congress memebers to fight for our rights.
if it were up to me, i would revoke the business licenses of all companies who would try to pull this kind of utter rubbish. no one in government has the balls or the decency to do their jobs.
to make people think the EULA has any veracity at all, legal or otherwise.
when you purchase a product, the manufacturer's ownership dies at that point.
they try to convince people through encryption or other methods to prevent access to customers' owned products, in order to convince them that they really don't own them. then they withold patches, etc.
this is about the most dishonest and unethical kind of commerce one can imagine.
and the software industry is the WORST offender by far. then come the other digital appliance/gadget makers, including "console" makers. they prevent lawful access to YOUR merchandise. that should be 100% outright illegal.
it's just a shame that we have no judges or congress people who are decent law abiders, in the old fashioned sense of the word.
off topic, but in previous stories you argue that apple has a right to prevent bought copies of osx being installed and used on hardware apple doesn't approve of.
how do you reconcile your current views of " copy protection but actually hurts only legitimate users" with apple(insert any manufacturer) has the right to prevent legitimate purchased copies from being used in a manner the company doesn't approve of?
doesn't that seem contradictory to you?
since the copyright system we have grants the purchaser the right to use the product they purchase, what role does the EULA play? what does that grant you?
and before you say "well don't buy it"... let me remind you that congress has not allowed car manufacturers to encrypt car chips to prevent lawful use by those who bought the cars.
so i must conclude that companies do not have the right to restrict lawful use. they cannot use encryption or DMCA or other artificial means to restrict access to products that are OWNED by the customer. i also conclude that customers then will not receive support or may even void their warranty in some circumstances, but that's the price you pay, which has been a right since the dawn of commerce.
seems to me, that going out of your way to prevent lawful uses is illegal and immoral. if not illegal due to bribing congress, then illegal in the original meaning of the word.
Slashdot Mirror
no offense but try looking at speakers that cost more than 99 bucks.
something in the 400+ range !should! meet your needs. if not, put your own set together.
klipsh and creative's high end speakers are usually highly acclaimed. at least if you believe the reviewers. but ultimately it may not sound as good to you as it did the reviewers due to location differences and noise levels. buy a good set and try it at home.
only that the drivers are obscene, not only to install but they totally overdo it with extras.
you can pare it down to just the drivers and important applets (even then it's a large chunk of drive space) but most users wouldn't even dare click anything but the next button.
that alone isn't enough though. their drivers are buggy as hell and performance in 3d audio is pretty pathetic for it being a dsp-based hw accel. card.
unfortunetly, host-based (read soft/win aka no dsp no hardware accel) sound cards aren't good for gaming. and it wouldn't make sense to get one if you play recent games. they usually only support eax2 or 3 and very poorly compared to creative.
creative is the microsoft or intel of the sound card world but unfortunetly for us, they bought out their competitors and there's little alternative for gaming sound cards. if you do music or other applications then creative never need even enter your vocabulary and you'll be much better off.
except in your example, they are really renting ponies but pretend to sell them outright.
that's the difference.
i am not expecting that an item i buy metamorphize into another item totally. i just want to fully utilze the goods i have purchased... except in this case the manufacturer went out of their way to prevent this.
the manufacturer got my money and i got an item that mostly belongs to the manufacturer.
i'm replying to myself so forgive me.
i shall try to make it a bit more clear what i'm talking about.
it's basically that the manufacturers treat the physical item as a rental instead of a sale.
i have no problem with them renting consoles because that would mean that the customers know what they're dealing with in terms of limitations etc.
but they outright SELL the item to you but treat it as a rental. in rented items, you cannot damage or open up or modify in any way the rentee doesn't approve of.
but you and i and millions of others know, we don't rent consoles when we pay the one time fee of 300-600 bucks.
if the access "circumvention" were easy, i would not complain. each generation of console is becoming increasingly difficult to get to OWN. often having to jump through hoops and opening up the machine and practice your soldering skills.
if they want that much "protection", then call it for what it is, a rental. anything else is outright fraud.
i honestly cannot understand why freedom loving geeks aren't outraged. maybe you don't care specifically about consoles and i can understand that. but what i'm trying to get across is that it is in no way just limited to "game machines".
how many gadgets and devices do you own...err you think you own? without full access to your own property, then for all intents and purposes you are renting the device at the pleasure of the manufacturer. those cell phones, music players, digital cameras, etc all belong to the manufacturers effectively. you may have possession of the physical devices but the real power lies with the company who produced it (and then rented it to you under the guise of selling it).
the manufacturers are smart fellows and can easily come up with a method to allow the machine to check that the game is not copied and still allow customers to own their property. because the alternative is to deprive the real owner of their property and that is a clear cut case of fraud (among other legalese and since ianal...).
actually you can not. in the future, the "security" of the systems will be greatly increased. we've been fortunate that current systems have been rendered back to their true owners but they were due to weaknesses in the design and exploits of buggy sw/hw.
i want them to be fully accessable from the box. these are not rented devices, they are fully bought.
i want to make it illegal to pseudo-rent items (it already is if anyone in congress/courts would follow the law). if you want to rent consoles that don't allow full access, by all means, go ahead.
but to fraudulently SELL merchandise then pretend it's a rental model is extremely unethical (and illegal, even in our messed up legal system).
they have every right to rent and sell, but to sell you and then defend themselves through a non-contract EULA , is not only illegal but is enough to consider them anti-customer and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law (where've you heard that before?).
they have a right to sell merchandise that does not disable full access to said merchandise once i have paid for it.
when it's sitting in their warehouse, they can DRM and lock it up like it's 1999. but when i hand over my money, then by definition, it is no longer theirs.
so no, your argument allows them to sell merchandise that doesn't really belong to the customer who buys it. that's dishonest to say the least and it's unethical business.
by definition, commerce is about both sides getting good property, e.g. the merchant gets non-counterfeit money and the customer gets full access to the merchandise. when it doesn't follow this pattern, bad things happen, in this case property rights erosion.
what you're arguing is to allow businesses to sell you items which you do not fully have access to. which is fine, except you'd have to follow procedure and call it renting. this is not renting by any means, it is called purchasing. you are paying fully the asking price of the item.
that you feel that my capitalization and grammar/spelling warrant more scrutiny, says a lot about your weak position in this discussion.
they punish you anyway. the console manufacturers i mean.
when the ps3/xbox360/revolution come out soon, you can buy one. but when you buy one, even though you paid for the graphics chip, the sound chip, the cpu, the vector/simd processors, the storage units; these are all off-limits to you, THE OWNER.
that means you need to get the company's permission to access your own PROPERTY!
how is this any different than lexmark's position? in fact it's even worse. these COMPUTERS can be so much more and legally you are in the RIGHT to do with them anything you wish, including but not limited to, programming the chips on the units to accomplish any task.
before you rush headlong to tell me "it's their business model"... i'll have to tell you how their business model is of any concern to me. to prevent legal access to your own property under the use of high-grade encryption constitutes a breach of commerce. to make this model work, it requires them to strip you of property rights.
those are your chips they're holding hostage.
and "don't buy from them" is not the answer. because here we have companies that are practicing an unethical business. you don't see gillette requiring high-grade encryption on the razor blade cartridges preventing customers from using it on any other brand of handle. how absurd would that be. software in this respect, follows the same pattern. if you give them the right to block lawful use of software, then also to be consistent you'd have to give them that kind of authority over physical items as well.
don't let them fool you with adjacent arguments about how this is their business model or how they sell the consoles (read computers) at a loss and make it up on game sales. that's a bunch of hogwash. this isn't at all about copying games or not paying for their hard work. because up till now i've only talked about one thing: access to the programmability of the chips. your chips, once you purchase the item. we're not talking about renting here, you have the RIGHT to access those chips.
if they have to sell consoles more expensively, then do so but any business model that deprives you of full access to your own property, is illegal and should be outlawed. this would never hold up under an educated citizenry.
i sincerely have no idea why more people aren't competely outraged over this. you're not renting these devices. you outright buy them. you buy everything, including the right to use the software on the machines. yeah, you purchased a copy of the core system software.
and we're not talking about 8bit microcontrollers (though the principle still applies), these are powerful multimedia processors. you have the right to have full access to those resources. it's not like you broke into IBM's hq and are running programs on their mainframes, this is YOUR property and the bastard companies are denying you your right to access it.
if they can't make money (and there's no reason whatsoever that they can't and still allow end-users to fully have access) then they need to find a business they can or go out of business.
for heaven sakes people, fight for basic rights like property rights or you'll truly regret it in the future.
the right to read comes to mind... but if all text is electronic and you don't and can't own the hardware with full access... it'll make you pine for these days we live in now as the good old days.
oh and btw, there are other ways to prevent "piracy", you don't need to deny the owner their property rights just to outlaw game copying.
just to reiterate, i have no interest in game "piracy", i only want full access to my own hardware. and i'm sure you do too.
then by what authority do they restrict what you can or cannot do with a purchased product?
copyright law is about distribution but you make it sound like that's that.
what would people do with copyrighted products that they cannot use? do people spend tons of money on dvds and cds just for the plastic discs?
no by defintion, under copyright law, you have the right to use what you paid for. and manufacturers/vendors/companies don't have any authority to tell you how and where and when you may view/use things you paid for. they claim they do have the authority, but claiming is not the same as having.
that's just one of the reasons they have DRM and encryption; to undermine the ownership of property and to deceive the public into thinking they need a license to use something you legally and lawfully purchased.
physical products don't need licenses in order to use and software is no different in this respect. just because it's a bunch of bits doesn't invalidate your rights to use your own property how you see fit.
people who argue software is "magical" and have different rules than other kinds of commerce, are the same ones who have fallen, hook line and sinker for the software industry's propoganda.
nicely said and a thoughtful response to boot.
there is NO contract.
where did you get the absurd notion that there was one?
a fool and his rights will soon be parted
their business model requires the circumvention of property rights and the tainting of contract law.
opening up a package does not constitute a binding contract no matter how much the briber^H^H lobbyists moan and bitch.
they're just words on a package unless you specifically signed the agreement with an employee of lexmark.
business models are of no concern to customers, legally or morally.
there is NO contract and you don't need a license to use what you bought.
this is criminal and unethical business is what it is.
people MAY choose to return them to lexmark but they are under no obligation. putting up more reasonably priced ink on store shelves and then trying to deceive people with a pseudo-legal notice that reminds them they are under a contract... what utter bullshit.
and as we can clearly see, the ninth-circuit is obviously not competent enough to realize you don't enter into contracts simply because you open a package. who gives a crap what it says on the outside of the box. you didn't sign anything and are under no obligation to return it.
too bad you're one of the very few people who seem to have a brain. err a working one that is.
most slashdotters seem to think a EULA or "license" agreement is valid.
the fact that buying said item, apparently doesn't grant them any rights. even after paying for it, it belongs to the merchant/vendor/manufacturer.
now you need a "license" to use things you have bought.
if you cannot see that as totally absurd, then i have a few bridges to "license" to you.
ink costs 1000 gallons for a dollar.
.005 cents worth of ink for 30 dollars, might seem like a good deal to you.
they are charging many many times for ink what wine makers charge for a top of the line bottle of dom perignon.
it is one of the most expensive items in the world today , unit for unit.
ink is DIRT cheap yet they see fit to charge you 50000-10000% above cost.
there are NO license agreements. you don't need a license to use a product you own, period.
anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't understand their rights.
lexmark selling you
it doesn't seem like a good deal to me.
in fact, it seems that lexmark is yet another company added to the A**hole Hall of Fame, right up there with MS, SCO, etc.
if you cannot make money legally and morally, get the fu*k out.
like buying copies of osx and installing them on non-apple hardware.
those damn dirty thieves.
the manufacturer still owns that copy of software and you'll only do with it what we tell you you can.
oh, you say that copyright law gives the user the right to use the purchased copy any way they see fit? then what does a EULA grant the customer?
oh wait...
their business model is OF NO CONCERN to customers.
trying to circumvent the law to serve their own moronic behavior ought to be illegal.
we need to start revoking the business licenses of a**hole companies.
that's the only way they'll even amend their dastardly behavior.
or they may be able to tell you where and how to run software.
oh wait...
don't forget the drum replacements.
charging too much is also in the book of unethical business practices. but it can be tolerated in a free market environment through competition...
"Getting down to ownership; if I buy something, I guess it's not really mine, eh?"
only if you let them get away with this criminal behavior.
we need to stop baa-baaing and get some tar and feathers and run these bitches out of town. or at the least, revoke their business licenses.
once the product is sold to you, it belongs solely to you and no one else.
EULA = abomination. period.
to say with a straight face that the manufacturer/vendor/company/merchant has ANY say whatsoever after the transaction has taken place, is looking to get bitchslapped across the face for being a propogandized zombie.
this is low down dishonest, unethical and criminal commerce.
if you like the jail world you're living in, i'm truly happy for you. i only wish the people who have woken up could take a little of what you're smoking. but alas, we now have a responsibility to lead moral and ethical lives. that includes all things, from the micro to the macro.
so no, we won't "get over it". this is OUR fuc*ing world! we're coming to take it back from the real thieves.
it died around 6. you know, when they decided that FMVs were more important than the actual game, and turning it into a giant teeny-bopper soap opera. and 3d gfx that did nothing to enhance the game and only introduced bad camera angles and slower performance.
keep it simple, stupid.
the same also applies to software products. don't forget, that's where they try and sneak in propoganda that says " software is MAGICAL and laws that govern all other commerce doesn't apply".
hell, tons and tons of slashdotters parrot that line as if it were a god-given right. they don't realize how utterly anti-customer and unethical/illegal it is.
you have EVERY right to access and use software in any manner you see fit. that's what copyright law gives you. copyright law only prevents distribution by anyone other than the copyright holder but it places no restrictions on how you may use it or where you use it.
EULAs are absolutely illegal. in the way illegal used to mean before BRIBEr^H^H lobbyists swarmed over D.C..
copyright law grants you the right to use copies you have purchased in any way you see fit.
so what does the EULA grant you?
it's not hacking. so stop using it in the sense that you don't own the item, including the physical or the software.
it's ALL yours.
stop believing their lies.
you have EVERY RIGHT to access your bought and paid for device in any way you choose.
it is outright illegal to prevent customers using the products they own in any way.
now we just need some competent judges and some unbribed congress memebers to fight for our rights.
if it were up to me, i would revoke the business licenses of all companies who would try to pull this kind of utter rubbish. no one in government has the balls or the decency to do their jobs.
that's their insidious plan.
to make people think the EULA has any veracity at all, legal or otherwise.
when you purchase a product, the manufacturer's ownership dies at that point.
they try to convince people through encryption or other methods to prevent access to customers' owned products, in order to convince them that they really don't own them. then they withold patches, etc.
this is about the most dishonest and unethical kind of commerce one can imagine.
and the software industry is the WORST offender by far. then come the other digital appliance/gadget makers, including "console" makers. they prevent lawful access to YOUR merchandise. that should be 100% outright illegal.
it's just a shame that we have no judges or congress people who are decent law abiders, in the old fashioned sense of the word.
off topic, but in previous stories you argue that apple has a right to prevent bought copies of osx being installed and used on hardware apple doesn't approve of.
how do you reconcile your current views of " copy protection but actually hurts only legitimate users" with apple(insert any manufacturer) has the right to prevent legitimate purchased copies from being used in a manner the company doesn't approve of?
doesn't that seem contradictory to you?
since the copyright system we have grants the purchaser the right to use the product they purchase, what role does the EULA play? what does that grant you?
and before you say "well don't buy it"... let me remind you that congress has not allowed car manufacturers to encrypt car chips to prevent lawful use by those who bought the cars.
so i must conclude that companies do not have the right to restrict lawful use. they cannot use encryption or DMCA or other artificial means to restrict access to products that are OWNED by the customer. i also conclude that customers then will not receive support or may even void their warranty in some circumstances, but that's the price you pay, which has been a right since the dawn of commerce.
seems to me, that going out of your way to prevent lawful uses is illegal and immoral. if not illegal due to bribing congress, then illegal in the original meaning of the word.
just some thoughts...