Via Bill Zame, there is an article in the New Republic about the role of intellectual property in assuring that you don't own your digital camera

While you might own the plastic, glass, and metal in the camera, you don't actually own the software that makes it run--you only have a license to it. And that license is pretty restrictive. If you let anyone outside your immediate family use the camera--if you lend it to a friend for the weekend or even ask a stranger to take a picture of you and your wife--Canon could technically sue you for breach of contract.

The article is here, but unless you have a subscription (I don't) you won't be able to read beyond the first paragraph. [Correction: Scate points out I was too hasty here - you just need to register to read the article...]

"The article is here, but unless you have a subscription (I don't) you won't be able to read beyond the first paragraph."

Um, no, it's free. You just have to register. If you can't even get that *basic* fact down, the rest of your credibility is rather suspect--which is too bad because you've pointed to an interesting article.

Yep, it's free, and the post didn't say it wasn't free.

Anywhoo, here's an account for you to use (be nice): Username: loginX Password: password

-- rav0

It never ceases to amaze me how many people still consider something to be "free" when there is a mandatory exchange of information required. "You just have to register"? Well in my book that is NOT free. As you can see on this site here, even posting isn't free as it requires name and email.

Except that you can enter "NoName" NoName@nowhere.com for your name and email :-) This isn't a sneaky attempt to find out who you are, just to let people who want to identify themselves do so.

Hello, my name is http://www.bugmenot.com, have we met?