Derek raised some very important points in his posting re: DMCA and its effects. I noticed that you (Derek) are a Software Developer, and you stated in your posting that you would be very annoyed about someone using your "ideas" and grabbing some of your market share from the use of such ideas (perhaps in the form of a similar program etc). This is where I get very confused. You see- for a long time I have listened to copyright protectors declaring to consumers that they need to copyright their software so that all benefit. Funny, I don't see any benefit from keeping back what amounts to "ideas" and "information" and making it "mine"--unless of course you pay the monies for me to give you a license to look at them/use them. Ideas simply should not be copyrighted or patented. Information should be a free vehicle for the expansion and progression of freedom and the human race full stop; exploiting a consumers power to spend by tying up your "ideas" in a package is fine, and some may think this is reasonable, but when you then say that that same information is yours alone and cannot be "copied" neither in word nor deed--that's dangerous. If this was how early scientific leaders dealt with their findings and research results, we would all be living in extreme conditions. Information, in its raw form, should be entirely open. That same information should be exploitable by all and for all. To patent schemes or information or applications is wrong and antithetical to sharing and furtherance of society and even business. I know I may get flamed heavily for this stance, but the reason I got into free software is because of the above arguments. Being tied into a proprietary tag, paying their price, and yet owning nothing of the product really annoys me! Being told that my ideas when transmitted over an open standards based networking medium (the Internet) become the property of an intellectual property owner and cease to be my ideas and information annoys me; when consumers don't have the power of choice and then are told that they neither have choice nor the right to look at the code that powers their machines--that annoys me. When programmers pretend that their money comes from software sales based on spurious mathematics on how much development time and therefore product value inherently survives because of that--that gets my back up. When programmers declare their programs and information "theirs" and not to be copied or used without royalty fees--that annoys me. That's just me though. The DMCA is purely a money making scheme (it would seem to me). The problem with the web at this time is that too many people see it as a source of revenue and not enough people see it a s free flow of information and ideas that could benefit all--communications serving people and not just business. Business users of the web are mostly to blaim for wanting more patents and more proprietary technology: "I'll have my slice of the web and you have yours; you'll pay to see mine and I'll pay to see yours.Either way we make lots of cash from consumers who will need to see both sets of information". For me, the fear is that the DMCA will further alienate the non-programmer and consumer and therefore lead to dumb PC users who can only use what nanny says they can, and only if they have a proper licensed software product. Linux is something that challenges all this trash. They don't like it for that! Linux users generally care about the free, open, flow of information and that's what the DMCA wants to deter. Again- these are just my opinons on the topic. I may be wrong. You may disagree with me. That's fine. What I'm sure we all want though is to maintain that free, open flow of information. That source code you hold in your hands, found on your Linux disks, stands for the most powerful things that man has ever accomplished- freedom and choice, sharing, and openness. Aren't these to be more protected than some programmer's small income from software sales? PS: I am not saying that programmers should not get paid ;-) I am saying that the monies they make from software sales ("bits" as Eric Raymond calls them) is very small compared to money they make from in-house programming and other related tasks. Software sales could generally be stopped tomorrow and hardly any programmers would lose from it--that's not where they earn from (unless you program for M$). Just thought I'd clarify that! Paul <hiding under table waiting for flames>