| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
A cost analysis of Vista content protectionA cost analysis of Vista content protectionPosted Dec 25, 2006 19:15 UTC (Mon) by dion (subscriber, #2764)In reply to: A cost analysis of Vista content protection by drag Parent article: A cost analysis of Vista content protection
As far as I can tell trans fats are worse for your health than the alternatives and the alternatives are not expensive or rare, so what's the argument for using trans fats?
Nobody is trying to outlaw shitty KFC type food, or McD, it's a relatively simple case of forcing the industry to use a less harmful ingredient.
... but this is entrirely off topic, my point was that some times it makes perfect sense to outlaw something for the good of the people and that the customers are actually better off because of it.
Take a hypotetical example, let's say cigarrets contain additives that only serve to make the victims addicted, would forcing the industry to stop adding that crap really infringe on anybodys freedom?
To get all of this a bit back on topic: I'd be all for making copyright a two-way trade, either the copyrightholder respects fair use and allows it or he gets no copyright protection at all.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||