Forwarded message:
From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@invweb.net> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 97 09:00:38 -0500 Subject: Re: CMR versus GAK? (fwd) > Right to monitor
The bottem line is:
Does the owner of a resource have an inherent right to control that resource and if so what are the boundaries?
Yes, and the boundaries should be very few. Things like just because you own a hammer doesn't give you the right to hit people over the head. But as far as setting policies on how a resource can be used and what conditions must be met before using them it should be without limit. If you don't like it the don't use it and go get your own.
But what are the boundaries? How do you tell when a particular action has crossed them?
Does the user of a resource have rights outside the purvue of the owner of that resource and if so what are the boundaries?
No they do not. If the user of a resource does not like the conditions set by the owner for the use of that resource then they should not use it.
They don't? What if the resource is a requirement for a normal life? Is simple ownership a license to steal or abuse? How do you even describe them in a general sense? What if the owner of a resource decides to change the fair use policy? Shouldn't the user have a say in what those conditions are? Is simply agreeing to be a user of a resource license for the owner to use that dependency to manipulate the user? No, your answers are better than the other persons but not by much. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage@ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|