Sony tried to claim ownership of an encryption key and were justifiably mocked them for trying to own a long number. A number tied to a copy of Windows can be owned/resold in Europe - I don’t know the exact legal justifications but needing the key to actually use the software you paid for probably has something to do with it. Nintendo chooses to encode a key exactly because copyright law prevents people decoding it, otherwise I could use software I paid for how I want and on hardware I choose.
I think user software freedom aught to be a more known concept in society.
That’s a ridiculous idea. If I buy a computer with an OS that has an encryption key to protect the hard drive, and later I need that key to remove my data to another system, I have an entirely reasonable expectation that I’m allowed to do so, regardless of how much the computer manufacturer doesn’t want me to.
You might own the hardware, but you don’t own the rights to the OS that runs on it. The encryption key is part of that software.
It’s not a hard concept to grasp. If I was openly selling a tool to break the activation lock on Windows, I could expect the same result.
Sony tried to claim ownership of an encryption key and were justifiably mocked them for trying to own a long number. A number tied to a copy of Windows can be owned/resold in Europe - I don’t know the exact legal justifications but needing the key to actually use the software you paid for probably has something to do with it. Nintendo chooses to encode a key exactly because copyright law prevents people decoding it, otherwise I could use software I paid for how I want and on hardware I choose.
I think user software freedom aught to be a more known concept in society.
That’s a ridiculous idea. If I buy a computer with an OS that has an encryption key to protect the hard drive, and later I need that key to remove my data to another system, I have an entirely reasonable expectation that I’m allowed to do so, regardless of how much the computer manufacturer doesn’t want me to.