<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
On 16/11/2010 16:33, Sam Radion wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTinFNR9xcSx7-qbJaOciDqdCHNHAwSJ_02rCSsHX@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Neil
Jones <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:neil@nwjones.demon.co.uk">neil@nwjones.demon.co.uk</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid
rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left:
1ex;">
Hi folks,<br>
<br>
I have no intention of getting a kindle.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
Then why is it a worry for you? <br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid
rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left:
1ex;">
I'm sorry but I'm not privatising the contents of my mind like
this. It<br>
sounds daft to me.<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
But you wouldn't be as you have no intention of buying one.<br>
<br>
Aside from the fact that Amazon trying to sue you for knowing
something is so unlikely as to be almost impossible, I think there
are far better things to spend mental effort on than a £150 gadget
you are not going to buy.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
Whether you see this as a problem depends on how well you see
possibilities as I have said.<br>
<br>
At the moment this is not a problem for me but what happens in the
future when other people who don't see the problems of Digital
Restrictions Management all have kindles , or devices with similarly
strange and authoritarian restrictions on them, and have used them
so much that some things are no longer available unless you have an
electronic device.<br>
<br>
It may be that those who interpret the word commercial as you cannot
sell your kindle with the books on it but it that were the case the<br>
wording would surely be "non-transferable" not non commercial.<br>
<br>
Again ignoring possibilities people may ask how are Amazon going to
know. Well for a start we don't know how, after all this catches on,
the internet will develop, but you can already discriminate many
company download sites from domestic ones just by IP address.<br>
People think they are buying the books. They are not. They are
licencing their use, and at any time Amazon or someone who buys/
acquires part<br>
of their business can enforce things the way they chose to and YOU
then have to have the resources to tackle them.<br>
You can bet an awful lot of people don't properly appreciate the
difference.<br>
<br>
This is a fundamental problem with Digital Restrictions Management
and it especially applies to things you want to keep and own<br>
for a long period.<br>
<br>
As Thomas Jefferson wrote "The price of liberty is eternal
vigilance" I have been here before when a corporate take-over found
me working for a new company whose contracts claimed the copyright
to anything and everything we did , work related or not. most people
were not bothered.<br>
I was as was a person who wrote professionally as a side line.
Owning the copyright to something means that you control its
expression.<br>
In theory I could not write the websites I now do without asking
permission or even write to my MP to complain about it. :-)<br>
Because no-one else was vigilant about their liberty I was stuck
with it until I left.<br>
At the time I wasn't affected but it would have be a severe
restriction to me now and i could see that coming.<br>
<br>
Just because an authoritarian restriction does not affect me now
does not mean that I should not be concerned about societal trends
and happenings that will affect us all in the future. Some of us,
the founders of the Open Source movement have realised, need to be
eternally vigilant.<br>
<br>
Neil<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>