>> If it's only legal, I'd argue that's a slippery slope towards a legal system of convenience and loss of absolute respect for the rule of law.

> Well, as you might have guessed by my references to contract law, I'm not a huge fan of statutory law. "Rule of law" is only good if the laws are good.

> If people want to modify their products, then that should be a competitive advantage for firms that offer products with terms allowing modification.

> Why? [do the technical methods for preventing modification become frightening]

I'm getting the sense that we have fundamentally different opinions of the way the way the market works. In my view, it's entirely reasonable that the following chain of events unfolds:

a) Company A builds product that prevents users from making modifications (legally and technically)

b) The product captures a substantial market share (variety of means: maybe exclusive content, advertising, etc.)

c) Because the product prevents users from making modifications, it can extract higher profit-per-user than competitors (by taking advantage of revenue streams unavailable to sellers of a more open product)

d) Those higher profits can then be leveraged into a more dominant market position (regulatory capture, buying budding competitors, etc.)

I have a feeling you would say "(b) would not happen because the market would correct in favor of consumers and away from Company A."

My opinion is the market only self-stabilizes within certain bounds: once things get too out of whack, there is no guaranteed correction.