With a car or home, the lender has a lien on it, until it's paid
off. I cannot sell them without the debt being cleared or at least transferred
to the satisfaction of the lender.
As you say, there are already
mechanism in place to deal with this. That's my point.
IMO adding DRM to
physical devices so the owner does not have control is morally reprehensible.
But no matter how bad DRM is, it's far worse for the government to make it
illegal for the owner to bypass this DRM on her on devices.
I agree with you
that once the device is fully paid for, there is absolutely no need for the DRM
and keeping the DRM in place after that should be illegal but that is not what
the law says.
Once I buy a phone, I'm legally allowed to do many things
with it such as destroy it. It is "my" phone. Why on earth should it be illegal
for me to unlock the phone? I'm still on the hook for the entire cost of the
phone. The penalties for early termination are huge. Why should my tax dollars
go to fund the enforcement of the Terms of Service? The government is reduced
to the level as acting like a hired stooge for the corporations.
The law you
support that makes it illegal to break the digital locking of phones also makes
it illegal to break digital locks on houses and cars and pacemakers and almost
any product that has electronics inside of it. Don't you see how crazy this is?
The idea that you don't really own or have control over the things you buy is
like something right out of very depressing dystopian science-fiction. Even if
there is a time limit on the DRM as you suggest, if the company goes belly up or
has a data failure then you're totally out of luck.
Locking information
and devices so they are not under the control of the "owner" is somewhat akin to
poisoning a water supply. They are both acts that remove resources from
general use. They are both detrimental to society as a whole. To use all the
potential of a locked down phone you need the digital key. To drink from the
poisoned water you need the antidote. Making it illegal to bypass the lock is
somewhat akin to making it illegal to remove the poison from the water supply so
it is usable again.
I'm not saying companies don't have the right to sell
locked-down devices (although in a sane society this would be seen as morally
reprehensible). I'm saying that it is crazy for the government to get involved
and add criminal penalties to what is essentially a civil matter. On top of
that, if the government is to be involved, they should be on the other side
ensuring the rights of the owner, not taking them away. The purpose of the law
is to protect the weak from the strong. It is a perversion when the system is
corrupted into being a club used by the strong to pummel the
weak.
--- Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more
contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|