Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UCB Researchers Critique DRM, Compulsory Licensing

Posted by timothy on from the problem-is-compulsion dept.

An anonymous reader writes " In this paper, Berkeley researchers critique a host of cockamamie DRM schemes, and they also question the compulsory licensing approach recently being promoted by the EFF. They get into some of the practical details about compulsory licensing that no one else seems to be talking about like technical feasibility, incentives to cheat, monitoring for compliance, efficiency of collection and distribution of funds, privacy, fair use, feasibility of legal enforcement... Anyway, it's worth a read and is a useful contribution to the debate, whatever side you're on. "

4 of 158 comments (clear)

  1. Re:I haven't read the article by tealover · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I don't know about you, but I like Microsoft. I used to be a Microsoft hater but then I realized I was just following the crowd. I've used Linux for years and while I think Linux is a nice niche, it will never replace Microsoft. Linux is plagued by the same problems as Unix --- too fractious.

    Microsoft establishes standards, and believe it or not...standards are good. If someone comes along and establishes better standards, then so be it. I don't think it will be Linux, however.

    --
    -- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
  2. Re:SHUT YOUR FUCKING FACE UNCLEFUCKER! by Jason_says · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    that wasnt very nice

    but im going to be the better man and not respond to that.

    mumble...mumble stupid bitch..mumble

  3. Re:As if.. by geekee · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    "I'm quite sure the EFF never claimed a compulsory licensing scheme would be perfect. It's a least bad kind of thing."

    Compulsory licensing is socialism. I'll take DRM over it any day of the week. I'd rather not be able to look at certain memory locations in my computer for data that Im not supposed to have free access to anyway (except for fair use purposes, which can be accomodated) than not be able to write a song and sell it at a price of my choosing.

    --
    Vote for Pedro
  4. Re:HTML for layout? No. Try "Markup". by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    You're wrong. Just accept that and move on.

    You're a asshole, just accept that and move on. :)

    I re-read my post, however, and realized that my first point came out totally incorrect. I was saying that HTML was originally designed for providing a cross-platform way to publish scientific and academic documents that could be read on any machine. That was its original purpose, and the world wide web is just a big bastard child of that purpose.

    I could go into detail, but you're too much a asshole to be worth my time.

    --
    Like what I said? You might like my music