NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.
All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
Equipment (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Equipment (Score:3, Informative)
Copy protection software is a false security. The record companies have been conned into thinking that they can put this software on CDs and everyone will buy into it. Thankfully a significant number don't.
If you are going to have copy protection it should not be to the detriment of my listening pleasure (several cases have highlighted the quality has been less than MP3s) and it should not try to install itself on any other machine that the owner has not given their explicit permission to do so. There are many Extended CDs out there now that have DATA tracks with lyrics videos, etc. All the ones I own (apart from the first few without the current technology) don't require anything to install, except perhaps readily available QuickTime or MPEG video players. So why should copy protection software ever require itself to be installed on your computer?
By installing itself during the autorun step then that violates MY terms and conditions of installing onto MY computer. Therefore should I be able to sue either the record company, the software writers or both? If a virus writer can be sued for doing exactly that, where is the difference here?
Reply to This
Parent