Subj : Re: How much should I charge for fixed-price software contract?
To   : comp.programming
From : Arthur J. O'Dwyer
Date : Mon Aug 22 2005 02:29 am


On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Randy Howard wrote:
> Richard Heathfield wrote
>> It is appropriate to arrest someone in some circumstances, but not
>> all. To arrest someone on suspicion of violating the Digital
>> Millennium Copyright Act is overkill.
>
> I tend to agree.  However, I have more worrying things to be
> concerned about, such as the so-called "PATRIOT Act", which is
> basically a government coup over the US Constitution.  Copyright
> violations are oh so lesser in importance compared to the loss
> of all freedom in the country.

   Well, both laws are equally unconstitutional, and a determined 
government employee (the kind we paranoiacs worry about ;) could use 
either one to do some pretty bad stuff. As you pointed out to Richard, 
it's not that the DMCA prevents copyright violation --- it's that the
DMCA is a tool to allow the punishment of /suspected copyright
violators/, for pretty much the most unreasonable definitions of 
"suspected" you can imagine. Similarly, the USA PATRIOT Act doesn't 
prevent terrorism (or drug smuggling, or child porn, or whatever 
bipartisan-friendly crime they're pushing this week). It is a tool for
the persecution of /suspected terrorists/, for whatever definitions
of "terrorist" you choose.

[...]
> That's true, but doesn't really answer the issue of compensation
> at all.  When there is a so-called 'flight risk' with a foreign
> national, arrest is apparently fairly common.

   (Side note: So suppose Sklyarov /had/ fled the country. Who cares? 
Remember, he hadn't done anything wrong, and even if he had, it would
have been something like "programming without a license," not murder
or arson or any of those /bad/ things people usually get pursued for.)

>> Please bear in mind that we're not
>> talking drug-running, murder, or arson here.
>
> That's true.  However, the crime is a crime, or there wouldn't
> be a law about it.

   Well, yes. And if only guilty people were sent to jail, the jails would 
be empty, if everybody obeyed the laws. :)  By which I mean: Tautology.


> This is similar to those that think that /some drugs/ are ok,

   Like water, sucrose, and aspirin. (In small doses.)

> while /some other drugs/ are not ok.

   Like caffeine, oxycodone, and heroin. (In small doses.)

>  They don't want to be
> arrested for using the former, but think it's okay to put people
> in the slammer for using the latter.  That's bull, and so is
> dicing and slicing other laws to meet individual opinion. If the
> law itself is suspect (which the DMCA almost assuredly is) then
> work to have it reversed.

   I thought you were the one saying that Richard's opinion didn't matter 
unless he was the Minister of Foreign Travel? :-/  You can't have it both 
ways --- you get to bash the guy either for being powerless, or for not 
speaking up, but not both at once. (And besides, in a perfect world, a 
bunch of American citizens expressing discontent with their own laws in a 
public forum /would/ be considered "working to have them reversed." 
Congress may not read Usenet, but /somebody/ does --- it's the trickle-up 
effect. :)


>>> Governments get overthrown when they try to steal
>>> power (and usually money) too rapidly, but when they do it
>>> methodically, it usually continues unabated until the economy
>>> collapses.  I suspect that is where the US, and perhaps the EU
>>> as well is currently headed.
>>
>> Alas, you are almost certainly correct.

Me three. But my sci-fi-novel sources tell me that once everything goes 
down the tubes, the President will declare a State of Emergency and 
release the Library of Congress on CD-ROM. That keeps me going. ;)

-Arthur,
also there will be flying cars

.