freedom-to-tinker.com— Yup, you heard me right. We're going back to the age of secret laws that the public can't know about. (last seen in the Roman Empire, c. 500 BC)
Jan 24, 2006View in Crawl 4
Not only did the Roman Empire not exist in 500 BC, but the Roman Republic had only just been founded (nine years earlier, according to tradition), and one of the hallmarks of the Republic was open and accountable lawmaking. That largely came to an end when the Republic collapsed and became the Empire centuries later. Deja vu, eh?
Personally, I'm amazed that anyone is surprised that the government is looking to wring more money out of something. That's de rigeur nowadays. I wouldn't be surprised if in several years enough laws accumulate to make it a felony to copy any media in any manner whatsoever. Of course, paying the requisite licensing fees clears all that nasty litigation all up...
Okay, this is f**king lame. We're talking about a standard non-disclosure agreement regarding a DRM scheme. This is to be expected. There's nothing s3kr17! about it.
tuxfanJan 24, 2006
This is what happens when corporate interests, money, and lack of American ethics meet.
gattix68Jan 24, 2006
I say Congress should experience the Digg effect.
asterusJan 25, 2006
Not only did the Roman Empire not exist in 500 BC, but the Roman Republic had only just been founded (nine years earlier, according to tradition), and one of the hallmarks of the Republic was open and accountable lawmaking. That largely came to an end when the Republic collapsed and became the Empire centuries later. Deja vu, eh?
iaskedtgtJan 25, 2006
<a class="user" href="http://digg.com/science/Sophomore_Stumps_President_Bush">http://digg.com/science/Sophomore_Stumps_President_Bush</a>
newevolutionJan 25, 2006
Personally, I'm amazed that anyone is surprised that the government is looking to wring more money out of something. That's de rigeur nowadays. I wouldn't be surprised if in several years enough laws accumulate to make it a felony to copy any media in any manner whatsoever. Of course, paying the requisite licensing fees clears all that nasty litigation all up...
siroccoJan 25, 2006
Okay, this is f**king lame. We're talking about a standard non-disclosure agreement regarding a DRM scheme. This is to be expected. There's nothing s3kr17! about it.
zionkingJan 25, 2006
i don't understand how this is ironic... it would have to be called something like 'UNVEIL' to be ironic, right?
benrayfieldJan 6, 2010
Secret laws are illegal. Here's the solution:<a class="user" href="http://digg.com/politics/Secret_government_being_created_Instead_help_us_design_it" rel="nofollow">http://digg.com/politics/Secret_government_being_c ...</a>