The irony is that the concept of a software licence was originally invented to give the purchaser MORE rights than copyright itself allowed.
Thus the licence typically allowed you to make the ephemeral copies necessary to run the program, to install it onto your hard drive and to make a backup. All of this would have been technically illegal under copyright law as understood in the 50s and 60s.
Thus the licence was always IN ADDITION to the rights that you automatically acquired on purchase.
Now however they seem to want to make the licence into something that takes away rights that you had. This may not be legally sound - but since when has that stopped them?
Re: Re: Re: Yet again claiming that success of copyright proves it isn't needed.
without copyright upheld and the moral imperative that creators own their products, Hollywood would get little.
Hollywood is a monopolistic cartel. As such it is the creation of copyright - which encourages monopolistic behaviour by middlemen. So you are right in a sense. Without copyright the Hollywood cartel would not exist. However many believe that the world would be a better place for consumers AND the original creators without the cartel.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yet again claiming that success of copyright proves it isn't needed.
It's like arguing religion with fundamentalists.
I think you are being unfair to the fundamentalists here. They usually have a book that provides a basis for their arguments. You know where you are with them. These copyright people just keep shifting their ground.
Do you really think other governments are on our side?
This confirms that encryption is no panacea, but is certainly worth deploying. The fact that it can make China's Great Cannon attacks harder, if not impossible, should also give pause to government officials around the world as they try to demonize encryption and call for it to be weakened or even banned.
Most officials of most governments are cheering China on under their breath. It is only in pubklic that China is condemned. In private they have the same agenda. It is just the remaining barriers of free speech and democracy that stop them saying so publicly.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I find it fascinating that those who protest against...
Well, by all the usual definitions of "pagan", he is correct....In any case, all religions that were the precursors to the main ones these days were indeed "pagan" by definition.
But that does not imply, as he does, that this means that all these religions developed from paganism.
On that basis one would have to say that modern humanistic atheist/agnostic thought developed from Christianity and hence from paganism. In that case the charge applies to everyone's beliefs - and hence it is meaningless.
Re: Re: Re: Re: I find it fascinating that those who protest against...
Islam, Judaism, Christianity, they all stem from the same source:
Paganism. Hmm - I either you are defining Paganism (in a somewhat unusual way) or you don't have much information about any of them. I'd like to know of a belief system that isn't based on Paganism by your definition.
The only difference they have between one another is the wording.
That is also the only difference between 2+2=4 and 2+2=5.