Some thoughts on DMCA

Hello,

Some rambling on DMCA.

I find that there are many parallels between guns and tools that software writers like Sklyarov create to allow people to make copies.

Both can be use to estinguish other peoples rights, like somebody else's right to live in case of guns and copyright in case of copying tools.

Both can protect the owners rights, like life and property in case of guns and right to make personal copies in case of copying tools.

But in case of guns the right to bear arms as well of right to live both are in the constitution, while in case of copying tools, only copyright finds its place in constitution.

My question is if guns, the device that can eliminate *the* most fundamental human right when misused, can be produces leagally, why are copying tools illegal under DMCA?

Copyright is not in the US Constitution. Only the authority to create it is.

So can a hammer.

You already answered that question (and only some copying tools are

Thrown in politicians coffers, and paid to the news organizations via salary, jobs, advertising and such.

.... this is OT ... take it to alt.politics

]Hello,

]Some rambling on DMCA.

]I find that there are many parallels between guns and tools that ]software writers like Sklyarov create to allow people to make copies.

]Both can be use to estinguish other peoples rights, like somebody else's ]right to live in case of guns and copyright in case of copying tools.

]Both can protect the owners rights, like life and property in case of ]guns and right to make personal copies in case of copying tools.

]But in case of guns the right to bear arms as well of right to live both ]are in the constitution, while in case of copying tools, only copyright ]finds its place in constitution.

]My question is if guns, the device that can eliminate *the* most fundamental ]human right when misused, can be produces leagally, why are copying tools ]illegal under DMCA?

Because the legislature felt that in the era of easy digital copying, cpyright holders needed more protection than they received under the old copyright act. (Personally I like neither the DCMA nor your silly analogy)