Fuzzy logic behind Bush's cybercrime treaty

TalkBack 4 of 12:: Next »; « Previous

Thread View
Flat View

Okay folks, go get the extra buttery popcorn!: As long as they keep the first amendment legal, they can go after all the big time file sharers they want. Why pay $1 per song when many new disc stores and used stores have albums for reasonable prices, sans the fascist nazi "DRM"? I don't want my current computer's OS version being the impetus behind my being allowed to copy music to my PDA and I don't share with anyone. Big whoop. If I ditch Windows XP, I refuse to repuchase the lot because I already have - I paid once for the license and I won't again. Forget consumer rights and you can forget consumers too. If it's not an equal playing field it's a field I'd rather not patronize.

I can see the legitimacy in some of this bill. But not all of it. It will be interesting to see if it passes.

But if the first amendment is trashed for the sake of this, well, I can guess a certain politician's popularity rating going from 35 down to 25% overnight. (though in theory, everyone who voted for that politician should be supporting every syllable he spits out.) Even the 100% pure and innocent people do not like being intimidated, and I fear this bill will be used more to intimidate than do anything for REAL national security...

...Case in point: If national security is a legitimate concern, when will our politicians call for the abolishment of offshoring? It's not just jobs we're bleeding, but data privacy and national security to boot. Especially once the "different laws in different countries" stuff applies; the US is full of cute laws. India and China are not.; Posted by: HypnoToad Posted on: 11/28/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use