what moral obligation? (Re: DRM technology and policy)

[Tim May]

On Tuesday, May 6, 2003, at 01:02  PM, Bill Stewart wrote:

> At 11:18 PM 05/05/2003 -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
>> At 10:48 PM 5/5/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>>> I believe that the Philips, who holds the trademark for compact 
>>> disks, has
>>> said that copy protected disks do not follow the standard and may 
>>> not use
>>> the trademark.
>>
>> If so, couldn't the labels selling be charged with deceptive 
>> advertising?
>
> Only if the round pieces of plastic in decorative jewel box cases
> are labelled "CD-ROM" and/or use the "CD" logo.
> I've heard that some of the recent sellers of user-preventing round 
> plastic
> have responded, correctly, to Philips's announcements about the issue
> by no longer labelling them as CDs.
>
> At that point, the implied assertion that the round plastic container
> for intellectual property packaging is a "CD" is no more deceptive
> than the implied assertion that it contains "music".

Given that a tax is already collected to make backups of music (the 
1992 Home Recording Act levies a tax on blank media), if one were to 
buy a CD at Tower Records and then not be able to make a copy, one 
would expect:

-- a refund of taxes levied on blank media

or

-- a refund of the money paid for the alleged CD

(plus compensation for the time and mileage consumed)

Were Tower Records to refuse a full refund plus compensation, then of 
course it would be moral to burn down their building.

Maybe after a few such burnings and 20 or 30 deaths of co-conspirators, 
the practice will change.

--Tim May



>
>
--Tim May
"The great object is that every man be armed and everyone who is able 
may have a gun." --Patrick Henry
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they 
be properly armed." --Alexander Hamilton