On Monday 24 April 2006 10:22, Tina Gasperson wrote:
> > 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.
Oh, yes there is. Civil liberties are at stake.
> 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
There is no problem watching movies on Linux. We don't need it... I watch
moves all the time. Yes, legally bought mainstream movies.
> 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?
Someone wants you to think you need DRM to watch movies. DRM is not a fact
either. It will cause such an outcry once people realize they no longer own
their own computer. And I'd rather see a movie at the theatre than give up my
free computer.
--Steve Szmidt
"To enjoy the right of political self-government, men must be capable of personal self-government - the virtue of self-control. A people without decency cannot be secure in its liberty. From the Declaration Principles ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 - 17:46:16 EDT