This is not strictly true. Bad DRM does that. Good DRM (such as, for example, iTunes DRM) simply enforces something resembling copyright law as it was pre-DMCA.
In any case, what matters is what the law is now... and that unfortunately allows for quite a bit more restriction than was originally intended. But that's not really the issue here.
Aha, here we get to the crux of the issue. One side of the argument believes that Congress is in the RIAA's pocket, and that a more comprehensive DMCA is inevitable.
Setting aside for the moment the observation that Congress is in fact in the oil industry's pocket rather than that of the entertainment industry, I wonder, what makes you so certain that another DMCA is on the way, and that it will be as comprehensive as you claim? And if it is as grave a threat as you suggest, what are you doing about it? I personally don't vote for anyone who pushes that kind of measure.
You weren't the first person to use this argument. But the answer is simple: slavery, by definition, is "involuntary servitude." Granted, as far as I'm concerned you're more than welcome to accept a job that amounts to slavery. I don't see why you shouldn't. You
There will be bad implementations of DRM, just the same as there will be bad software and bad hardware. DRM can be made to run on open hardware if its developers understand that it cannot be made 100% effective. Closed hardware that can't run a wide array of software will not be accepted by a market that wants to run that software. That's not to say it won't sell - just that it'll be more of a specialty device, like a DVR or a game console. There is a market for open platforms, and as long as this is true, all the worst fears surrounding DRM can be trivially circumvented.
As if there's no such thing as a "computer that's not an AMD Personal Internet Computer." As long as there are alternative products, people will be able to get what they want, and as long as people are willing to pay for it, there will be alternative products.
Outlawing DRM would simply make it that much harder for developers to protect themselves from exploitation. Users aren't the only part of the equation.
Fortunately, with software it's quite a bit simpler. Does it do what I, as the customer, want it to do? Does it do so in a manner that is efficient (in terms of time, effort, and CPU cycles)? Is it stable? Is it well-documented? There are many ways to quantify morality. There are far fewer ways to quantify software.
Who told you that? Surely you must know that such trite sayings too often oversimplify anything. Unrestrained greed usually leads to bad things, yes, but it is the "unrestrained" part that causes the problems. What's so wrong about wanting to be wealthy?
So build your own computer. That way you and only you control your information. Vote with your wallet. There's always somebody willing to make a buck of a person who's looking for more options. And, as I said, if you can't get the components to do that, then I'll be right alongside you throwing the molotov cocktails. But we're not that far gone.
Open source isn't just limited to software, and it certainly isn't limited to software on closed platforms.
Really? You're telling me that every single kebab van on the streets of a major city replaces their frying oil daily, follows hygiene best practices, and uses only the finest cuts of the exact same meat they claim to be using?
I'm saying that they're not slipping tracking devices into the sausage so they can break into their customers' homes late at night to steal and pawn the family heirlooms, which I believe is a more accurate metaphor for the fears surrounding businesses of any size among the Slashdot crowd.
Show me a single case of a company using DRM to enhance their customers' experience. Show me a single case where DRM has been used in a way that does not put paying customers at a disadvantage, while failing to do affect those who steal their entertainment in the slightest. Show me a single case where DRM has been implemented in a way that respects the rights of the public as well as the rights of the content creator -- i.e., a DRM system that stops restricting the content when its copyright expires.
The perennial example is iTunes. If that's not good enough for you, then let's go with, say, PC games verifying that the disc is in the tray as it loads the program. Once the copyright expires, you are legally entitled to do whatever you want with that executable. Or how about any number of small-name commercial utilities that connect once to the manufacturer's server to verify the serial number that turns it from a demo to the full version? How about Steam? All these things are DRM, no less so than a rootkit just because it doesn't compromise your system or try to get you to pay twice.
Who knows? Maybe anthrax in extremely small doses could be used as a cancer treatment. It's all a matter of how you use it.
You misunderstand me. I'm saying that if a standard is accepted which reams the customer up the ass too hard, the consumer will move on to something else. That we're starting to get more sinister-looking standards is merely because the ways in which the customer is being screwed are in small things he didn't care about anyway.
A highly restrictive format will lose to a freer format, and don't think that format wars won't happen just because something dominates the market.
And naturally, there must be a set of criteria to determine what constitues "best." You might find that the one set that most closely agrees with businesses and consumers, in general, want most, is a set that does not universally favor one over the other for purely ideological reasons. A "viewpoint" is not such a nebulous and imprecise thing as you seem to think.
Some implementations of DRM do work better (for the company or for the consumer) than others. I agree the government should stay out of it in either case.
You make one error: that free software and DRM are opposite approaches to the question of "how to make software?" does not imply that those who advocate one must oppose the other. All software need not be the same, and it seems to me your argument has gotten bogged down in so much ideology and logical somersaults that you've forgotten one self-evident proposition: "software" in general can be both closed and open. An individual application must choose one or the other, but the consequences of that choice are limited to the consequences of that application. Hell, the way you put it, it would be impossible for a programmer to program server authentication during the day, and then come home and make an open-source utility on weekends.
What I am saying, in short, is that anyone who claims that software should never have DRM is being as absurd as a person who claims that all software should have DRM.
Software is about solving problems - and neither DRM nor open source represent a solution that is superior to the other in all cases.
Entrepreneurship - the search for profit - is based around the idea of making and selling something that changes the world - that makes it so it's not the way it was before. If people get used to not being able to play home movies, then the guy who sells a player that can play home movies is going to make a killing. I'm serious, you do not want to keep people away from their home movies.
You overestimate their power. You think I'm giving them any information that isn't mine to give away? If Microsoft knows where I live, that still doesn't mean they know where you live. Besides, it's a bit of a stretch to take over a country with the knowledge that a whole bunch of people like to read science fiction ebooks.
Who's this they you're so afraid of, anyway? Corporations? Corporations are still run by people. Managing the business is just their job. Robbing people is a lot less viable as a career option than selling them things.
Or, okay, I could play along. Let's say that my years of rampant consumerism finally catch up with me, and now (because I told them) Conglom-O now knows my height, weight, eye color, hair color, shoe size, address, phone number, credit card number, and that I like to read Richard Feynman in my spare time, while wearing clothes that are usually blue, and that I picked up a bunch of diapers yesterday. And let's say that Conglom-O is Evil, and that they think Richard Feynman was a big dooty-head. (I got the book from Mom & Pop's Inter Net Booksellers before they were bought out) What are they going to do about this knowledge? If they like money, they could sell me some swank Richard Feynman Fan Club gear - especially in blue - knowing that I'd probably pay top dollar for that shit. If they prefer power, they could buy a bunch of senators and have Richard Feynman purged from the Library of Congress, and later have anybody who ever knew he existed thrown into the vat of boiling sharks.
Well, I don't particularly like that - I'll give up small, tightly limited freedoms to anybody who can convince me it's worth it, but I'll be damned if I'm going to pay the government to take them away - so before they do too much (political realities tend to slow down such plans) I get some buddies together and we organize a grass-roots campaign to get some whiny, idealistic senators elected. They might not be bribe-proof, but they give us some breathing room to make whiny, idealistic senators popular enough to drive up bribe costs heavily all across the board, and save the day. Oh, but what's that you say? They already own the entire government? Then I guess I'm fucked whether or not Conglom-O knows how much I dig Richard Feynman - and as fate would have it, I'm not paranoid enough to hide my reading habits from anybody who cares to know what they are. And as long as there's a legal system in place, I doubt I'll be able to create a situation where I can protect myself from more invasive harvesting. (And if it's not in place, I dunno, then I'll probably start lobbing molotov cocktails around. Call me naive, but I don't think the system's quite that broken.)
Math is not politics, and for all the wisdom we've gained from the study of numbers, not all of their insights are pracitcal. The way to ruin a basically sound idea is by attempting to apply it to situations where it's not appropriate. Addition is an extremely sound idea. No matter how far you carry it, it still works. I would not, however, recommend it as a good way to determine the circumference of a circle, when multiplication is so much easier in that particular circumstance. And then when you throw people into the mix who think that not only is addition the ideal expression of arithmetic, but that multiplication is inherently wrong.
At no point did I claim that Free software is in any way "flawed." I merely imply that it is not the best tool for every job, as it were. TFA deals with (a zealot of his own sort reporting about) zealots who believe that unrestricted software is the best solution to all problems. Truth is not the issue here - practicality is.
TFA seemed to be more concerned with the state of certain groups within the open source community. I agree that the letter of the GPL ought to agree with its spirit. I disagree that DRM is the Great Satan of software development (which I was under the impression was central to the issue at hand).
Stranger things have happened. And it's a far more level-headed solution than any further limitation of the right of developers to make and sell whatever kind of software they please.
Slashdot Mirror
In any case, what matters is what the law is now... and that unfortunately allows for quite a bit more restriction than was originally intended. But that's not really the issue here.
Aha, here we get to the crux of the issue. One side of the argument believes that Congress is in the RIAA's pocket, and that a more comprehensive DMCA is inevitable.
Setting aside for the moment the observation that Congress is in fact in the oil industry's pocket rather than that of the entertainment industry, I wonder, what makes you so certain that another DMCA is on the way, and that it will be as comprehensive as you claim? And if it is as grave a threat as you suggest, what are you doing about it? I personally don't vote for anyone who pushes that kind of measure.
You weren't the first person to use this argument. But the answer is simple: slavery, by definition, is "involuntary servitude." Granted, as far as I'm concerned you're more than welcome to accept a job that amounts to slavery. I don't see why you shouldn't. You
There will be bad implementations of DRM, just the same as there will be bad software and bad hardware. DRM can be made to run on open hardware if its developers understand that it cannot be made 100% effective. Closed hardware that can't run a wide array of software will not be accepted by a market that wants to run that software. That's not to say it won't sell - just that it'll be more of a specialty device, like a DVR or a game console. There is a market for open platforms, and as long as this is true, all the worst fears surrounding DRM can be trivially circumvented.
As if there's no such thing as a "computer that's not an AMD Personal Internet Computer." As long as there are alternative products, people will be able to get what they want, and as long as people are willing to pay for it, there will be alternative products.
Outlawing DRM would simply make it that much harder for developers to protect themselves from exploitation. Users aren't the only part of the equation.
Fortunately, with software it's quite a bit simpler. Does it do what I, as the customer, want it to do? Does it do so in a manner that is efficient (in terms of time, effort, and CPU cycles)? Is it stable? Is it well-documented? There are many ways to quantify morality. There are far fewer ways to quantify software.
Who told you that? Surely you must know that such trite sayings too often oversimplify anything. Unrestrained greed usually leads to bad things, yes, but it is the "unrestrained" part that causes the problems. What's so wrong about wanting to be wealthy?
So build your own computer. That way you and only you control your information. Vote with your wallet. There's always somebody willing to make a buck of a person who's looking for more options. And, as I said, if you can't get the components to do that, then I'll be right alongside you throwing the molotov cocktails. But we're not that far gone.
Open source isn't just limited to software, and it certainly isn't limited to software on closed platforms.
I think either you or I need to go to bed. Probably me. I can barely figure out what you're trying to say this time.
I'm saying that they're not slipping tracking devices into the sausage so they can break into their customers' homes late at night to steal and pawn the family heirlooms, which I believe is a more accurate metaphor for the fears surrounding businesses of any size among the Slashdot crowd.
Show me a single case of a company using DRM to enhance their customers' experience. Show me a single case where DRM has been used in a way that does not put paying customers at a disadvantage, while failing to do affect those who steal their entertainment in the slightest. Show me a single case where DRM has been implemented in a way that respects the rights of the public as well as the rights of the content creator -- i.e., a DRM system that stops restricting the content when its copyright expires.
The perennial example is iTunes. If that's not good enough for you, then let's go with, say, PC games verifying that the disc is in the tray as it loads the program. Once the copyright expires, you are legally entitled to do whatever you want with that executable. Or how about any number of small-name commercial utilities that connect once to the manufacturer's server to verify the serial number that turns it from a demo to the full version? How about Steam? All these things are DRM, no less so than a rootkit just because it doesn't compromise your system or try to get you to pay twice.
Who knows? Maybe anthrax in extremely small doses could be used as a cancer treatment. It's all a matter of how you use it.
TFA is about, as I have noted, the viewpoint that suggests forbidding DRM, which is in my mind likely a bad idea.
You misunderstand me. I'm saying that if a standard is accepted which reams the customer up the ass too hard, the consumer will move on to something else. That we're starting to get more sinister-looking standards is merely because the ways in which the customer is being screwed are in small things he didn't care about anyway.
A highly restrictive format will lose to a freer format, and don't think that format wars won't happen just because something dominates the market.
And naturally, there must be a set of criteria to determine what constitues "best." You might find that the one set that most closely agrees with businesses and consumers, in general, want most, is a set that does not universally favor one over the other for purely ideological reasons. A "viewpoint" is not such a nebulous and imprecise thing as you seem to think.
Some implementations of DRM do work better (for the company or for the consumer) than others. I agree the government should stay out of it in either case.
TFA is about people who appear to want this. I never harbored any illusion that they could pull it off. I'm just saying, it's a stupid thing to want.
Also: Economics, not subject to hypothesis and proof? I suggest you rethink that assertion.
You act as if nobody's ever created a new, better (for the consumer) standard before.
What I am saying, in short, is that anyone who claims that software should never have DRM is being as absurd as a person who claims that all software should have DRM.
Software is about solving problems - and neither DRM nor open source represent a solution that is superior to the other in all cases.
Entrepreneurship - the search for profit - is based around the idea of making and selling something that changes the world - that makes it so it's not the way it was before. If people get used to not being able to play home movies, then the guy who sells a player that can play home movies is going to make a killing. I'm serious, you do not want to keep people away from their home movies.
Not as long as there's enough people who are dissatisfied with those two options. Unhappy people means there's money to be made.
Who's this they you're so afraid of, anyway? Corporations? Corporations are still run by people. Managing the business is just their job. Robbing people is a lot less viable as a career option than selling them things.
Or, okay, I could play along. Let's say that my years of rampant consumerism finally catch up with me, and now (because I told them) Conglom-O now knows my height, weight, eye color, hair color, shoe size, address, phone number, credit card number, and that I like to read Richard Feynman in my spare time, while wearing clothes that are usually blue, and that I picked up a bunch of diapers yesterday. And let's say that Conglom-O is Evil, and that they think Richard Feynman was a big dooty-head. (I got the book from Mom & Pop's Inter Net Booksellers before they were bought out) What are they going to do about this knowledge? If they like money, they could sell me some swank Richard Feynman Fan Club gear - especially in blue - knowing that I'd probably pay top dollar for that shit. If they prefer power, they could buy a bunch of senators and have Richard Feynman purged from the Library of Congress, and later have anybody who ever knew he existed thrown into the vat of boiling sharks.
Well, I don't particularly like that - I'll give up small, tightly limited freedoms to anybody who can convince me it's worth it, but I'll be damned if I'm going to pay the government to take them away - so before they do too much (political realities tend to slow down such plans) I get some buddies together and we organize a grass-roots campaign to get some whiny, idealistic senators elected. They might not be bribe-proof, but they give us some breathing room to make whiny, idealistic senators popular enough to drive up bribe costs heavily all across the board, and save the day. Oh, but what's that you say? They already own the entire government? Then I guess I'm fucked whether or not Conglom-O knows how much I dig Richard Feynman - and as fate would have it, I'm not paranoid enough to hide my reading habits from anybody who cares to know what they are. And as long as there's a legal system in place, I doubt I'll be able to create a situation where I can protect myself from more invasive harvesting. (And if it's not in place, I dunno, then I'll probably start lobbing molotov cocktails around. Call me naive, but I don't think the system's quite that broken.)
Which, it should go without saying, is as extreme and undesirable a solution as forbidding it altogether.
Math is not politics, and for all the wisdom we've gained from the study of numbers, not all of their insights are pracitcal. The way to ruin a basically sound idea is by attempting to apply it to situations where it's not appropriate. Addition is an extremely sound idea. No matter how far you carry it, it still works. I would not, however, recommend it as a good way to determine the circumference of a circle, when multiplication is so much easier in that particular circumstance. And then when you throw people into the mix who think that not only is addition the ideal expression of arithmetic, but that multiplication is inherently wrong.
At no point did I claim that Free software is in any way "flawed." I merely imply that it is not the best tool for every job, as it were. TFA deals with (a zealot of his own sort reporting about) zealots who believe that unrestricted software is the best solution to all problems. Truth is not the issue here - practicality is.
TFA seemed to be more concerned with the state of certain groups within the open source community. I agree that the letter of the GPL ought to agree with its spirit. I disagree that DRM is the Great Satan of software development (which I was under the impression was central to the issue at hand).
Stranger things have happened. And it's a far more level-headed solution than any further limitation of the right of developers to make and sell whatever kind of software they please.