Ed Gerck wrote:
> > if the contract is void (in that respect), the question is irrelevant.
>
> The distinction between private use and public dissemination might be relevant
> to define if the contract is void or not. Take the Stac vs Microsoft case. Would
> Microsoft have lost in Norway, and piracy be allowed? I doubt it.
agreed.
> > if it comes not to
> > questions of copying, but to finding out how it works, where exactly is
> > the huge difference?) these barriers still are artificial and arbitrary.
>
> Not if you profit from it or if you decrease the producer's rights
> by publishing what he did not publish. Remember, this issue has two
> sides -- there are also legitimate authors.
I know, I write software myself. but I can't remember a case where I
would've been pissed if someone found out how I do the things I do.
> This is the dilemma facing civilized societies -- how to defend your right
> without infringing on another's rights. To find out how crappy a product
> is, oftentimes just the description suffices -- wild claims, etc. But, in
> some cases this is not enough. Then, proving one or two counterexamples
> may suffice. This is IMO what could have happened here and it would
> have been much more effective.
two things. first: in many cases, this is not sufficient. for example,
to prove that CSS is a crappy algorithm, it had to be broken.
second: is it not a right that I can take apart the things I own? in a
civilized society, it should be. much of our current high-tech culture
is literally fueled by the curiosity of the youth. sacrifice a culture
and technology to protect a couple already filthy rich protectionists?
> Now, if you are against "sueing someone because he took away your
> product", then what would the remedy be? To allow anyone to take
> away anyone else's product? Kneecapping? Ignoring the rights of the
> producer does not help the consumer, as history shows. We need a
> balance.
that should, of course, have read "take apart", not "take away". :)
the problem here is that the producer doesn't lose any material good if
I disclose his thing. furthermore, I believe in a simple rule-of-thumb
from cryptography: if you can't disclose it (or can't cope with it being
disclosed by someone else), it's crap.
in general, the general public profits if some secret algorithm gets
known. to be honest, I can't think of a single counter-example.
