| |||||||||||
The Chamberlain v. Skylink DMCA rulingThe Chamberlain v. Skylink DMCA rulingPosted Sep 11, 2003 3:43 UTC (Thu) by proski (subscriber, #104)Parent article: The Chamberlain v. Skylink DMCA ruling The irony is that people buy locks because they don't want to rely on the law alone. It's already illegal to trespass other people's property, but Chamberlain customers also pay for technical measure to enforce their property right. Chamberlain, on the other hand, is selling hardware that needs to be protected by law (DMCA) to be effective. The customers are not getting what they expect to get for their money - an effective device to protect their property from trespassing by people with little or no respect to the law. If you are going to buy anything from a company that has ever invoked DMCA, think again.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||