I'm not saying that creating businesses is always good; I'm saying it's not always bad. It's a significant distinction. :) I'm also firmly against anti-circumvention laws; I see the debate as being whether Amazon, Apple, etc. should be allowed to try to lock down their products.
I don't see why there should be a double standard with bits vs. atoms: that software is allowed to be closed as part of your business model, but hardware is not. And if we're going to insist on user freedoms for hardware, we should also insist on them for software; however, that carries a risk of reduced wealth creation if there are too few property protections for creators.
(It is admittedly awkward to take a firm stand that says "This is a complex issue with no perfect answers".)
>I see the debate as being whether Amazon, Apple, etc. should be allowed to try to lock down their products.
That's not really on the table. The very big players might get some monopolist/consumer protection heat for certain things, but I can't think of any general legislation. (And I think it would violate the first amendment.)
Anyone can make software or hardware that does one set of things and is intentionally difficult to use for something else. I know of no law remotely approaching something that would make it illegal to produce an audio player that can only play one proprietary encrypted format.
I don't see why there should be a double standard with bits vs. atoms: that software is allowed to be closed as part of your business model, but hardware is not. And if we're going to insist on user freedoms for hardware, we should also insist on them for software; however, that carries a risk of reduced wealth creation if there are too few property protections for creators.
(It is admittedly awkward to take a firm stand that says "This is a complex issue with no perfect answers".)