Nobody will respect copyright?
I understand that you mean that if digital devices allow a crime to be committed anonmously then a crime will be committed.
The bigger problem is that a lot of DRM commits crimes against fair use and free speech. Also that DRM is often a criminal violation of privacy. Not all DRM is evil. But the debate on DRM is focused on eliminating DRM that is "evil".
Consumers are going to choose items that allow fair use and free speech. The whole economy doesn't collapse without DRM - it only collapses for some. As a consumer, I'd rather have the economy collapse for Sony than loose free speech through digital mediums.
I agree: "Attention is the most valuable commidity"
It's up to the consumer to choose what kind of world they want.
With DRM you protect mega companies. (which are not all "evil")
Without DRM you protect free speech.
The problem with DRM is that it's "digital restrictions management" not "digital _rights_ managment" you loose rights in ways that only benifit corporations. No DRM doesn't mean doing away with copyright law - no DRM means getting rid of products that infringe on rights.
Maybe the question becomes "How do you make money and protect free speech?" Seems to me like there are more ways to make money for more people with free speech than without.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody will respect copyright? I understand that you mean that if digital devices allow a crime to be committed anonmously then a crime will be committed. The bigger problem is that a lot of DRM commits crimes against fair use and free speech. Also that DRM is often a criminal violation of privacy. Not all DRM is evil. But the debate on DRM is focused on eliminating DRM that is "evil". Consumers are going to choose items that allow fair use and free speech. The whole economy doesn't collapse without DRM - it only collapses for some. As a consumer, I'd rather have the economy collapse for Sony than loose free speech through digital mediums.
I agree: "Attention is the most valuable commidity" It's up to the consumer to choose what kind of world they want. With DRM you protect mega companies. (which are not all "evil") Without DRM you protect free speech. The problem with DRM is that it's "digital restrictions management" not "digital _rights_ managment" you loose rights in ways that only benifit corporations. No DRM doesn't mean doing away with copyright law - no DRM means getting rid of products that infringe on rights. Maybe the question becomes "How do you make money and protect free speech?" Seems to me like there are more ways to make money for more people with free speech than without.