> But it does not say that everyone has lost interest in it. The problem is
> that everyone is used to everything being FREE and OPEN that now they are
> thinking communistic thoughts like Richard Stallman and feels every
> convieveable thing should be free and open.
Or perhaps, *gasp*, software being Free and Open have opened up our
eyes to the reality that the interpretation of copyright law needs to
be reformed. That sharing with your neighbor *isn't* stealing. That
sharing with your neighbor *isn't* the same as boarding a ship,
killing everyone aboard, and looting it of valuables. That maybe the
purpose of information and ideas and art are to be shared, not to be
kept secret.
If sharing information with humanity equates to communism, and using
laws and courts and fees to keep it secret from those who don't pay
their pounds of flesh equates to capitalism, then I know on which side
of the fence I'd rather be.
> I dont care to call DRM, DRM but under it orginal name Content Protection
> Security. I say Content Proctection Security, and people dont seem to mind
> as much as saying DRM as the open source community has simply turned DRM
> into a dirty word.
> Personally we all know the artist does not get the money, and the cd sales
> etc goes in the pockets of the RIAA and the record label. But still stealing
> is stealing does not matter if you steal from Bill Gates House or some hobo
> on the street. One is not better than they other simply because one can
> afford it. While I am not happy or saying DRM is wonderful DRM is great.
> What I am saying DRM is a necessary evil.
It doesn't matter what you call it, because it's always a spin on:
Forcing Customers To Use Our Content In Only The Way I Want Them To.
According to m-w.com:
Steal: to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as an
habitual or regular practice
Two things make copyright infringement legally not stealing:
1) Digital content is not "property." Property is physical, like a
loaf of bread or a pair of crotchless panties. There is no such thing
as "intellectual property." This is a catchphrase made up and
propagated by content distributors and patent holders to win mindshare
in those who don't understand how copyrights and patents work, and the
differences between them. There are copyrights, and there are
patents. There are different laws that govern and apply to each. I
am not a lawyer, but Eben Moglen is, and he agrees with me.
2) "wrongfully" is *very* arguable. The purpose of copyright law is
to strike a balance between producers (artists, musicians, authors,
software developers, ...) and consumers. Current interpretation of
copyright law *only* benefits content distributors - NOT producers OR
consumers. Because of the prohibitive cost of content reproduction
and distribution in the early 20th century, content distributors
gained a chokehold over the providers and consumers in the popular
music and motion picture industries. (Distributors of printed media
have/enforce this to a lesser extent, due to: a) They've been around
longer, and know that this kind of change is basically inevitable b)
There's not really a way yet to enjoy most digitized printed content
that measures up to reading a book) Now that the cost of content
reproduction and distribution in its most convenient form is zero, the
content distribution chokeholders are doing everything they can: by
paying for laws and interpretation thereof, by spreading propaganda,
by shoving DRM/CPS/FCTUOCIOTWIWTT in our faces, and by doing
ridiculous things like trying to sue 12-year-old girls - to prevent
producers and consumers from prying their greedy, money-grubbing
fingers away from our throats. But no matter how they try to spin,
and threaten, and whine, and use phrases like "piracy" and
"intellectual property" and "communism" and "anticapitalist," they
can't *make* fair use wrong.
DRM may be evil, but it is certainly not necessary.
-- Tcsh: Now with higher FPS! http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:06:37 EDT