|FROM ||David Sugar
|SUBJECT ||Re: [hangout] Fwd: [DMCA-Activists] WMP DRM update [firstname.lastname@example.org]
I have heard, and after some thoughtful deliberation, have come to
conclude that there is some claim by Microsoft that their contractual
rights under their EULA can supercede basic constitutional freedoms, or,
specifically, in this particular case, the 4th ammendment, whereby one is
free and secure in their own posessions. Clearly DRM acting in this
manner, whether attempted to be mandated by government action or
introduced by some corporation, is a gross violation of everyone's 4th
ammendment rights under the US constitution. In that I do not make use
their products or services, this does not directly effect me, but as an
issue of any individual, group, or organization, that believes it's above
the law and the constitution, no matter how large it is, this is something
clearly wrong that effects every one of us as American citizens. I do not
have an immediate or specific course of action to suggest to anyone, but I
do believe action of some form is clearly nessisary. I would be happy to
hear thoughtful opinions on what type of action might be most effective.
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Marco Scoffier wrote:
> ----- Begin Forwarded Message -----
> Date: 2002.06.29 18:51
> Subject: [DMCA-Activists] WMP DRM update
> From: Matthew Caron
> To: FSS , DMCA
> Message-ID: <1025391119.2523.159.camel-at-hiro>
> The new EULA for Windows Media Player has you agreeing to let MS remove
> functionality as part of DRM (Digital Rights Management), including
> possibly breaking software already on your machine.
> No one should use [MS] Windows anymore, I've gotten so spoiled by
> not using it that it just drives me up the wall now.
> -- Liz Muth
> ~~ Matt Caron ~~
> DMCA-Activists mailing list
> ----- End Forwarded Message -----
> New Yorker Linux Users Scene
> Fair Use -
> because it's either fair use or useless....
New Yorker Linux Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....