> >I have always been philosophically opposed to protection because it treats >me as if I were a criminal -- guilty until proven innocent by the my ID >papers. My government can't do this, so why should some collection of >corporate dumbbunnies get to do it? >... >Cheerfully, >Dennis >
While there is nothing inherently wrong w. this philosophy, it must be pointed out that the objection applies with equal force to every manner of lock or barrier whatsoever: What!? I can't go through this door without securing your approval in advance and obtaining the proper "key"? You're treating me like a criminal! And it's perfectly true: anybody approaching any locked door *is* being treated like a criminal--but life is like that, and I'd think we'd all have come to terms with it by now. When passenger screening was first instituted at airports, back in the '70s, I swore I'd never fly again. Even wrote my congressman. Guess how many months that resolution lasted. Let me be clear: I'm no fan of copy protection. I'm no fan of locks, burglar alarms, customs barriers, or tamper-proof packaging either, but these things are here to stay, so why give yourself an ulcer over it? The difference with copy protection is not that it is some kind of unprecedented Orwellian control mechanism, but simply that, *because it doesn't work*, honest customers are inconvenienced while dishonest ones are not. -- Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://www.kallistimusic.com _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
