I wonder what might happen in the future (or the present for that matter) for any artist when users are required to use DRM to play the music produced by that artist. How about if the artist has a unresolved disagreement with the label, and the label, as a way to make the artist conform, summarily disables the ability of any user to play that artist's DRM'ed music? What about old DRM'ed music that the label might consider no longer popular and marketable? Might they allow the "keys" to such music to become no longer available, so that users can no longer play those tunes? The labels are in the business of selling, so they would want music lovers to keep on buying new music rather than listening to old tunes they might have. This also means that a lot of very good, but old, music might become lost because of expiring DRM keys. If DRM had been used in the 1920's, I wonder how much of the great Jazz and Big Band music of that era, and later years, would be perserved today?
Most likely chimps got the infection from eating other monkeys, not from having sex. There was a program on A&E one time about Killer Apes. They showed a sequence about the process some groups of chimps use in an organized hunt to kill other monkeys for food. Chimps would have spread the HIV infection to other chimps by sharing the meat. It was an interesting show, because I did not realize that at some times, chimps did ate meat.
I want to use DeCSS or some other suitable software to play my legally purchased DVD disks on my Linux system. Windows users can do this, why shouldn't I be allowed to do so also? The reasons as to why there is no such software for Linux would fill another whole discussion.
Now I am only interested in using my computers in a lawful fashion, but I am very concerned with the perception of Linux users and hackers, of which I am one, being created in this case as only wanting to use this software to copy copyrighted material, rather than how we intend to use this code so as to be able to view our legally purchased or rented DVDs. The discussion at this point could run on into what is this concept we call "fair use". I feel we are going to lose this battle, and the war, because we are being portrayed in the press as pirates stealing copy righted material. An analogy I might draw is someone saying I intended in purchasing a gun to go down the street and hold up the local 7-Eleven, rather than my actual intention to use the gun for hunting, target shooting or (God forbid!) protecting myself and my family.
We are being judged on how we MIGHT use this DeCSS code, not on how we really intent to use it. We are guilty of a crime we had no intention of committing just because we possess the means. This is all too often how our rights are mis-handled so that someone can have an exceptional and exclusive benefit. No matter that it might make it inconvenient for the rest of us.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder what might happen in the future (or the present for that matter) for any artist when users are required to use DRM to play the music produced by that artist. How about if the artist has a unresolved disagreement with the label, and the label, as a way to make the artist conform, summarily disables the ability of any user to play that artist's DRM'ed music? What about old DRM'ed music that the label might consider no longer popular and marketable? Might they allow the "keys" to such music to become no longer available, so that users can no longer play those tunes? The labels are in the business of selling, so they would want music lovers to keep on buying new music rather than listening to old tunes they might have. This also means that a lot of very good, but old, music might become lost because of expiring DRM keys. If DRM had been used in the 1920's, I wonder how much of the great Jazz and Big Band music of that era, and later years, would be perserved today?
Most likely chimps got the infection from eating other monkeys, not from having sex. There was a program on A&E one time about Killer Apes. They showed a sequence about the process some groups of chimps use in an organized hunt to kill other monkeys for food. Chimps would have spread the HIV infection to other chimps by sharing the meat. It was an interesting show, because I did not realize that at some times, chimps did ate meat.
I want to use DeCSS or some other suitable software to play my legally purchased DVD disks on my Linux system. Windows users can do this, why shouldn't I be allowed to do so also? The reasons as to why there is no such software for Linux would fill another whole discussion.
Now I am only interested in using my computers in a lawful fashion, but I am very concerned with the perception of Linux users and hackers, of which I am one, being created in this case as only wanting to use this software to copy copyrighted material, rather than how we intend to use this code so as to be able to view our legally purchased or rented DVDs. The discussion at this point could run on into what is this concept we call "fair use". I feel we are going to lose this battle, and the war, because we are being portrayed in the press as pirates stealing copy righted material. An analogy I might draw is someone saying I intended in purchasing a gun to go down the street and hold up the local 7-Eleven, rather than my actual intention to use the gun for hunting, target shooting or (God forbid!) protecting myself and my family.
We are being judged on how we MIGHT use this DeCSS code, not on how we really intent to use it. We are guilty of a crime we had no intention of committing just because we possess the means. This is all too often how our rights are mis-handled so that someone can have an exceptional and exclusive benefit. No matter that it might make it inconvenient for the rest of us.