[Commons-Law] Russell McOrmond on Commodore 64 Freedom
Via: Seth Johnson
(While I like the freedom to tinker line, I'm inclined to say his
lead message should be his point about the right to own a
computer. What's really on the line is the right to own a device
that performs logical operations, which is the same as to say
from a slightly different direction, the right to benefit from
copyright and use information productively. -- Seth)
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [d@DCC] The Commodore 64 continuum: "open source"
hardware...
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 20:03:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Russell McOrmond
To: General Copyright Discussions
Sending a letter in reply to an article from earlier this month:
http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/home/News.asp?id=41320
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 20:00:55 -0500
From: Russell McOrmond
To: sschick
Subject: Re: The Commodore 64 continuum: "open source"
hardware...
I am a fan of the Commodore 64. My Apple II clone, my Vic
20, and my Commodore 64 all had 65xx processors in them, and each
one came with full schematics of the hardware with the manuals.
One of my jobs in the late 80's and early 90's was as a certified
Commodore repair person for Eastern Ontario, a job where the
skills were self-taught.
We are heading to a situation where the old-economy music
labels, movie studies, and proprietary software vendors are
colluding with hardware manufacturers and misinformed governments
to legalize and legally protect the concept of "no owner
modifiable parts inside". They want to take away our right to
tinker, even disallowing computer owners from making our own
software choices.
How I learned computing, both hardware and software, is
increasingly being considered illegal.
I believe that governments must firmly reject this attack on
property, creative, educational and other rights. We should be
going the other way by mandating that hardware manufacturers
provide adequate documentation to hardware owners so we can
author our own software to share if we wish. No exclusive right,
whether copyright or patents, should ever be allowed on
interfaces. The property rights of hardware owners should always
trump the extremism that has allowed hardware manufacturers to
treat their customers as a threat rather than the very people who
drive the future of computing.
I sit here on Christmas day thinking of Christmas past where I
was given some of this hardware. I feel sad that children
approximately 20 years later will not be able to receive the same
level of gift that will benefit them in their future.
Russell McOrmond
Ottawa, Canada
http://flora.ca
- --
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant:
Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our
property
rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition!
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/ict/
"The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and
hardware
manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre,
or
portable media player from my cold dead hands!"
(While I like the freedom to tinker line, I'm inclined to say his
lead message should be his point about the right to own a
computer. What's really on the line is the right to own a device
that performs logical operations, which is the same as to say
from a slightly different direction, the right to benefit from
copyright and use information productively. -- Seth)
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [d@DCC] The Commodore 64 continuum: "open source"
hardware...
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 20:03:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Russell McOrmond
To: General Copyright Discussions
Sending a letter in reply to an article from earlier this month:
http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/home/News.asp?id=41320
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 20:00:55 -0500
From: Russell McOrmond
To: sschick
Subject: Re: The Commodore 64 continuum: "open source"
hardware...
I am a fan of the Commodore 64. My Apple II clone, my Vic
20, and my Commodore 64 all had 65xx processors in them, and each
one came with full schematics of the hardware with the manuals.
One of my jobs in the late 80's and early 90's was as a certified
Commodore repair person for Eastern Ontario, a job where the
skills were self-taught.
We are heading to a situation where the old-economy music
labels, movie studies, and proprietary software vendors are
colluding with hardware manufacturers and misinformed governments
to legalize and legally protect the concept of "no owner
modifiable parts inside". They want to take away our right to
tinker, even disallowing computer owners from making our own
software choices.
How I learned computing, both hardware and software, is
increasingly being considered illegal.
I believe that governments must firmly reject this attack on
property, creative, educational and other rights. We should be
going the other way by mandating that hardware manufacturers
provide adequate documentation to hardware owners so we can
author our own software to share if we wish. No exclusive right,
whether copyright or patents, should ever be allowed on
interfaces. The property rights of hardware owners should always
trump the extremism that has allowed hardware manufacturers to
treat their customers as a threat rather than the very people who
drive the future of computing.
I sit here on Christmas day thinking of Christmas past where I
was given some of this hardware. I feel sad that children
approximately 20 years later will not be able to receive the same
level of gift that will benefit them in their future.
Russell McOrmond
Ottawa, Canada
http://flora.ca
- --
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant:
Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our
property
rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition!
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/ict/
"The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and
hardware
manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre,
or
portable media player from my cold dead hands!"
comments
No new comments allowed (anymore) on this post.