3 ms·
It seems the specifically designed logic to fail at a certain date is the reason. If stuff breaks because of a screwup, or at least something that people can be
by ufmace 7y ago
It seems the specifically designed logic to fail at a certain date is the reason. If stuff breaks because of a screwup, or at least something that people can be convinced is a routine screwup, that's one thing. Actually creating a new module to make something fail is something else.
It's like if the plumber designed, built, and installed a device specifically to make your plumbing leak or clog or something at a specific point in the future, instead of just installing a normal and expected device incorrectly.
The law does tend to take intentions into account for crimes and punishment. Killing somebody by a freak accident is different from making a plan in advance to kill somebody and executing it.
This does make it feel rather odd that it's legal to DRM things though.
- perl4ever 7y ago"It's like if the plumber designed, built, and installed a device specifically to make your plumbing leak or clog or something at a specific point in the future, instead of just installing a normal and expected device incorrectly." Intent is what matters. The distinction you're describing just affects whether it's deniable.
- ufmace 7y agoWell yeah. Doing something that makes it easy to prove that your intent was malicious does tend to change things a bit.