> We don't need to promote a DRM-like alternative to DRM, because none
> is necessary. All that is necessary is a modern interpretation of
> copyright law as it applies to content distributed in digital form.
Yeah, but that's probably not going to happen. There's no incentive
for that to happen. Which leaves it all back at square one. Taking the
purist's high road seems to leave Linux out of the popular multimedia
loop. It seems like you either make an allowance for DRM, or you
really don't compete with MS. Or I'm not seeing it and someone needs
to show me how we can circumvent this legitimately AND draw the
interest of the major production companies in music and movies. I
don't think the production companies take Linux seriously as a channel
for their product. I talked to the CTO of Starz the other day and he
didn't seem to be all that concerned about Linux's lack of DRM
support. They'd like to offer their product on Linux, but they're only
going to support Windows because the movie houses say no to Linux.
They don't have to say yes to Linux because it's such a tiny piece of
the picture. And how will it get bigger if we don't have airtight DRM?
That's the catch-22. It could be that we all agree with Richard
Stallman and that our moral concerns take priority over world
dominance, which is fine, but is that really the case?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked
Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages
posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 17:45:52 EDT