Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 20th Jan 2006 21:39 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source The update to the GNU GPL 2.0, which was some five years in the making, was released this week for a year of public commentary. Richard Stallman, the founder of the Free Software Foundation and author of the current license, sat down with eWEEK Senior Editor Peter Galli at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to talk about his aims, hopes and wishes for the new license.
Order by: Score:
DRM
by konfoo on Fri 20th Jan 2006 22:02 UTC
konfoo
Member since:
2006-01-02

While his stance is understandable for desktop computing, he is shooting the community in the foot when it comes to set-top-box, cellular phone, and other CE devices that will have to use DRM to play content. You can't sway the market if you are a minority. Its a nice idea, but when you get down to it, its still pie in the sky. I bet Microsoft are loving this: 'competitor eliminates self'.

Reply Score: 5

RE: DRM
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 20th Jan 2006 22:27 UTC in reply to "DRM"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You do know Linus does not NEED to adopt the GPL v3 right? He might as well decide to keep using v2.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: DRM
by konfoo on Fri 20th Jan 2006 22:32 UTC in reply to "RE: DRM"
konfoo Member since:
2006-01-02

Ofcourse. No-one does. But confusion in the 'marketplace' doesn't help (its good for news and hypemongering), and neither does fractured licensing -- if this scenario indeed does come to pass.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: DRM
by Soulbender on Sat 21st Jan 2006 12:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: DRM"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"But confusion in the 'marketplace' doesn't help (its good for news and hypemongering), and neither does fractured licensing"

Good thing there arent any confusing and fractured licensing in the non-OSS world. No wait...

Edited 2006-01-21 12:05

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: DRM
by j-s-h on Sun 22nd Jan 2006 15:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: DRM"
j-s-h Member since:
2005-07-08

Yeah, let's not release any new software either, so there would be no "confusion" of having more than one version.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: DRM
by helf on Fri 20th Jan 2006 22:38 UTC in reply to "RE: DRM"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

actually, is it even POSSIBLE for the kernel license to be changed? since a ton of people have helped with it and they would all have ot agree or have their stuff removed/rewritten if they didnt want it to be gpl3 ?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: DRM
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 20th Jan 2006 22:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: DRM"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

is it even POSSIBLE for the kernel license to be changed?

Good point :/.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: DRM
by thebluesgnr on Fri 20th Jan 2006 23:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: DRM"
thebluesgnr Member since:
2005-11-14

You can't change the license of the code without the copyright holder's approval. In the particular case of Linux that means _a lot_ of people.

What could happen is that new contributions are licensed under the GPL v3.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: DRM
by helf on Fri 20th Jan 2006 23:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: DRM"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

having code in the kernel that use two versions of a license would be a headache.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: DRM
by thebluesgnr on Fri 20th Jan 2006 23:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: DRM"
thebluesgnr Member since:
2005-11-14

Not really, if the licenses are compatible.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: DRM
by dylansmrjones on Sat 21st Jan 2006 12:11 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: DRM"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Well, is "GPL Version 2 ONLY" compatible with contributions "GPL Version 3 or (at your option) newer version?

I don't think the kernel devs will switch to version 3, nor accepting source under GPL V.3.

It seems unlikely to me, considering their license stance so far.

Reply Score: 2

RE: DRM
by j-s-h on Sat 21st Jan 2006 02:07 UTC in reply to "DRM"
j-s-h Member since:
2005-07-08

Why would those devices "have to use DRM to play content"? That assumption is quite outlandish, and you offer exactly ZERO support for it.

Reply Score: 1

Scary
by Smartpatrol on Fri 20th Jan 2006 23:49 UTC
Smartpatrol
Member since:
2005-07-06

DRM is an attempt to crush the freedom that copyright law gives the public. It is completely evil. DRM does not deserve to be tolerated and should be wiped out. It is tolerated because governments are not very democratic and the rich have too much power over governments and the media.

And people wonder why FOSS has a problem being fully accepted. RMS = Che Guevara? I dunno but their politics are the same.

Edited 2006-01-20 23:53

Reply Score: 4

RE: Scary
by WorknMan on Sat 21st Jan 2006 00:49 UTC in reply to "Scary"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

DRM does not deserve to be tolerated and should be wiped out. It is tolerated because governments are not very democratic and the rich have too much power over governments and the media.

No, it is tolerated because people actually go out and buy the stuff. 42 million people bought iPods and probably most of them have bought some music on ITMS, which means they willingly took it up the ass. And this guy wants to blame the government.

Also, think about this .. if there was no piracy, there would be no consumer DRM. They'd have no justifiable reason reason to push it. So why don't you blame it on the people who are really responsible? But people who pirate will continue to justify it .. screaming about how they were so badly screwed by the entertainment industry, like they were forced at gunpoint to pay $15 for a CD. And then they wonder why their digital entertainment is slowly being loaded down with policeware. And if they're like Stallman, they'll too blame it on the government.

Edited 2006-01-21 00:52

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Scary
by thebluesgnr on Sat 21st Jan 2006 00:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Scary"
thebluesgnr Member since:
2005-11-14

So if a country is under a dictatorship it's _only_ the people to blame? For accepting such government to impose itself on them?

The fact is many governments (specially the US gov) are making laws in the interest of companies, and laws that hurt the interest of the people and their freedom. This is a sad fact, and I'd like to know where you live if you think otherwise.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Scary
by dylansmrjones on Sat 21st Jan 2006 12:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Scary"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Actually people who illegally copy music (known as "pirates") buy legal music 5 (FIVE) times as often as those of us who do not copy music illegally.

Though in my situation it's probably because there is very few new releases for me to buy (and those there are or have been, has been bought a long time ago), due to my taste in music.

Consumer DRM is used because music companies do not want to accept the changes in the global world. In stead of accepting competition they try to stiffle, using their money to create new laws prohibiting what was formerly legal (like perfectly legal parallel import of DVDs).

Reply Score: 3

RE: Scary
by dylansmrjones on Sat 21st Jan 2006 12:14 UTC in reply to "Scary"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

No they're not.

The principle behind GPL is the same as behind democracy.

The principles behind Microsofts and Apples EULAs are authoritarian principles identical to those of a communist system, like the system Che Guevara represented.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Scary
by Wrawrat on Sat 21st Jan 2006 19:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Scary"
Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

The principle behind GPL is the same as behind democracy.

Yet, sharing code has nothing to do with democracy. In the specific case of the GPL, the licence is about adding restrictions on a file for guaranteeing its freedom (according to RMS' definition). Restrictions that you have to accept if you are going to use it. Restrictions that you cannot vote or modify because the licence itself is copyrighted by the FSF. In the pure spirit of our dear Stallman, you can substitute "[adding] restrictions" by "[giving] rights". In the end, it's the same thing.

Advocates are saying that the GPL is based on copyright law. The copyright law is giving the absolute control of a given work to its copyright owner(s). Again, no democracy in sight.

It doesn't mean the licence is bad. It's just that open-source licences are usually about sharing, not democracy.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: DRM
by archiesteel on Sat 21st Jan 2006 00:28 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

But confusion in the 'marketplace' doesn't help (its good for news and hypemongering), and neither does fractured licensing

I wouldn't be worried. "Fractured" licensing is already here (with the GPL, BSDL, CDDL, and the myriads of EULAs out there).

As far as confusion goes, the end-user is never exposed to this. It's up to the manufacturer's legal team to make sure that the product they make complies with the license.

Tempest in a a teapot, if you ask me.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: DRM
by tomcat on Sat 21st Jan 2006 18:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: DRM"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

I wouldn't be worried. "Fractured" licensing is already here (with the GPL, BSDL, CDDL, and the myriads of EULAs out there).

Yeah, but not typically in the same PRODUCT.

As far as confusion goes, the end-user is never exposed to this. It's up to the manufacturer's legal team to make sure that the product they make complies with the license.

So what. It still adds significant confusion to the marketplace. Manufacturers want and need explicit direction when they license a product. When we tell them that they have to comply with multiple licenses for the same PRODUCT, it can create a legal morasse. Some may decide not to use GPL3'd products, as a result.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Scary
by archiesteel on Sat 21st Jan 2006 00:31 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

And people wonder why FOSS has a problem being fully accepted.

Why? The man is right, after all. DRM limits right to fair use. The other day, in order to listen to the songs from a CD I had legally purchased on my iPod, I had to go through a legal loophole and download a program that plays the encrypted WMA files into a virtual soundcard, captures the output and re-encodes it into mp3. I shouldn't have to do that.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but RMS is right on the money on this one.

Reply Score: 5

v RE[2]: Scary
by Tom K on Sat 21st Jan 2006 00:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Scary"
RE[3]: Scary
by csasso73 on Sat 21st Jan 2006 00:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Scary"
csasso73 Member since:
2006-01-21

If the CD plays in a regular CD player, then there are DRM-less copies of the songs on the CD recorded in regular audio CD/AIFF format.

Your ignorance/lack of skill is no excuse.

[csasso] Hum, it seems to me you didn't understand what he wrote..

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Scary
by Tom K on Sat 21st Jan 2006 01:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Scary"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah, he says he couldn't put songs off his legally-purchased CD on his iPod, instead having to use a virtual audio card to re-record the decoded WMA.

I'm saying that he's just ignorant, because as long as the CD plays in a regular CD player, then there are copies of the songs on it that are NOT DRM'ed, but rather plain audio. If he knew how to rip those, he wouldn't have to use the hacky work-around. He doesn't know how to rip those, so that's why I'm calling him ignorant.

Reply Score: 0

v RE[2]: Scary
by CrazyDude0 on Sat 21st Jan 2006 07:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Scary"
RE[3]: Scary
by dylansmrjones on Sat 21st Jan 2006 12:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Scary"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Let's analyze the post:

Words used by CrazyDude0:
Whore, pathetic, zealtory (zealotry?), stupidity, whores, f--kin, Zealots, pissed.

And of course a claim that people who are against DRM are all pirates. This is of course not true.

DRM is illegal according to existing danish law, and therefore of course not yet implemented.

The problem with DRM is that it illegally prevents fair use.

I can understand companies want to avoid piracy, but violating the rights of users are not the right way.

Reply Score: 2

Oh boy!
by Smartpatrol on Sat 21st Jan 2006 01:24 UTC
Smartpatrol
Member since:
2005-07-06

The fact is many governments (specially the US gov) are making laws in the interest of companies, and laws that hurt the interest of the people and their freedom. This is a sad fact, and I'd like to know where you live if you think otherwise.

In the interest of capatalistic society! y'know western civilization? Hard to employ people when your IP is free traded, copied or given away. I am not trying to debate DRM exactly, i am debating RMSs capacity to think clearly on what free software means. Spouting leftist drivel does not futher the interests of FOSS. Like i have said before RMS needs to stay in the closet and let others do the talking if he trully has interest if free software becoming anything other then a fad or lay down his ideology and simple be a programmer. He is like the embarassing family member that keep making a fool of himself and everyone around him.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Oh boy!
by thebluesgnr on Sat 21st Jan 2006 02:04 UTC in reply to "Oh boy!"
thebluesgnr Member since:
2005-11-14

So what you're saying is that restricting people's freedom is in the interest of a capitalistic society? I'm sorry but I don't buy that.

Regarding RMS, he is free to express his opinions. And being against governments acting against people's rights in the interest of corporations doesn't make one a leftist.

I'm sure YOU don't think you know what's best for the free software movement more than the man who actually sat down and got it all started. RMS will not stay in the closet; rather he will continue to defend and stand up for what he believes (freedom).

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Oh boy!
by Smartpatrol on Sat 21st Jan 2006 04:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Oh boy!"
Smartpatrol Member since:
2005-07-06

So what you're saying is that restricting people's freedom is in the interest of a capitalistic society? I'm sorry but I don't buy that.

I see it a protecting someones ideas that have value in our society.

Regarding RMS, he is free to express his opinions. And being against governments acting against people's rights in the interest of corporations doesn't make one a leftist.

Never said he couldn't express his opinions. Spouting the common leftist position makes him a leftist.

I'm sure YOU don't think you know what's best for the free software movement more than the man who actually sat down and got it all started. RMS will not stay in the closet; rather he will continue to defend and stand up for what he believes (freedom).

So i guess Browning should not have spoken up on what he thought of weapon technology at the beginning of last century hmmm? Hell the Europeans invented the firearm so who knows better about guns then them?

Fact is the free software movement eclipsed RMS long ago. He just comes out of his hole once in a while to piss and moan about something he has no control over anymore. He does more harm then good.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Oh boy!
by thebluesgnr on Sat 21st Jan 2006 06:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Oh boy!"
thebluesgnr Member since:
2005-11-14

"I see it a protecting someones ideas that have value in our society. "

Honestly, I don't care how you see it. If someone is taking freedom away then they're taking freedom away.

"Never said he couldn't express his opinions. Spouting the common leftist position makes him a leftist. "

By saying you want him to stay in the closet you're saying you want him to shut up.
And I thought standing up for freedom was not the common leftist position but the common American position, common as well in many countries.

"Fact is the free software movement eclipsed RMS long ago. He just comes out of his hole once in a while to piss and moan about something he has no control over anymore. He does more harm then good."

How can he do more harm than good if what he does is stand up for the exact same things he did over 20 years ago? All the stuff that comes out of his mouth today can be read in the GNU manifesto.

What you're confusing is the free software movement with the open source movement or the Linux movement. The Open source movement was started by people who don't agree with the basic ideas of the free software movement, but to some parts of it.
Talking about freedom may bother some, and if you want RMS to stop talking about freedom in order to increase adoption of free software with thm you can forget about it. Some agree with you, and that's exactly why Open Source was defined in 1998. If you'd like to read why RMS doesn't agree with you then read the differences between free sfotware and open source from fsf.org.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Oh boy!
by dylansmrjones on Sat 21st Jan 2006 12:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Oh boy!"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

It's a violation of democratic and capitalistic idea to protect ideas, because it stiffles competition. Any thing which stiffles competition is anti capitalistic and anti democratic. It is however a part of planned economy, as used in communist, nazi and fascist systems.

Protecting ideas is NOT a part of capitalism.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Oh boy!
by dylansmrjones on Sat 21st Jan 2006 12:33 UTC in reply to "Oh boy!"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

You obviously don't grok capitalism. But at least your fantasies are fun to read.

You do realize that the only leftist here are you? In your fight against you become them, in regard to the methods used.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Scary
by archiesteel on Sat 21st Jan 2006 01:45 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

Hey Tommy, sure there are non-DRM files on the CD, but I can't access them when I put them into the (Windows) PC. That's because that content can't seem to be accessed from the PC. If it can' i couldn't find how to do it. Instead of using personal insults (which seems to represent the limit of your intellectual ability), perhaps you could have indicated to me how to do this, hmm? But I guess you enjoy being modded down, and need to insult others in other to compensate for your own low self-esteem.

Anyway, the problem was not ripping the WMA files off of the disc, but the fact that they are encrypted and will not work in an iPod. As far as I could tell, the method I described in my original post is the only one that works.

Can I add that this is in fact something that I had to do for my girlfriend (her CD, her iPod)? If I hadn't been around, she wouldn't have known how to do it at all and wouldn't have been able to listen to the CD on her iPod. And this is in an allegedly easy-to-use operating system...

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Scary
by Varg Vikernes on Sat 21st Jan 2006 02:07 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Scary"
Varg Vikernes Member since:
2005-07-06

Instead of using personal insults (which seems to represent the limit of your intellectual ability)...

I hope you get the irony here.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Scary
by dylansmrjones on Sat 21st Jan 2006 12:27 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Scary"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

It's perfectly valid considering the insults he received.

And his own insults are at a much higher level. But yes, it has a certain amount of irony. Irony is good for the soul.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Scary
by archiesteel on Sat 21st Jan 2006 01:50 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

Actually, it says on the disc back cover that it might not play in all CD players and car stereos...

DRM is punishing those who follow the rules...You want to stop piracy? Offer a plus-value. The recording industry is trying to rewrite copyright law to protect their business model.

And here you guys are, defending powerful, non-elected lobbies. Why do you hate democracy so much?

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Scary
by archiesteel on Sat 21st Jan 2006 02:13 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

This was intentional. I make a rule of not insulting people, however when I am the target of insults I will allow myself a jab or two.

Note that, in this case, it is not a simple retort. The fact is that LIP - a known anti-Linux troll, as his name indicates - often resorts to insults, ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments. So in fact that does seem to be the limit of his debating skills.

This however, doesn't really concern you, apart from the fact that you are on the same ideological side as LIP. It seems to me that LIP can defend himself without your help...

Edited 2006-01-21 02:14

Reply Score: 0

by Lumbergh on Sat 21st Jan 2006 02:28 UTC
Lumbergh
Member since:
2005-06-29

First thing him and Eben Moglen should do is consult with lawyers in the IT industry to make sure they understand it.

The need to have the GPL more compatible with other free licenses is one I have heard a lot about, as well as the issue of license proliferation. Your thoughts on this?

We're not interested in the Open Source Initiative's approval of licenses. We've been judging licenses as to whether they are free software licenses many years before there was an OSI. They're entitled to have their own opinions and have nothing, particularly, to do with our movement.


Heh, of course. Open Source and Stallman's camp are not the same thing. http://linux.omnipotent.net/article.php?article_id=12503&page=-1

Microsoft is simply one example of a proprietary software developer, a software developer that tries to subjugate users to keep them divided and helples

Me declines to drink the koolaid. I like being divided and helpless when I use a Microsoft product.

Reply Score: 2

RE:
by dylansmrjones on Sat 21st Jan 2006 12:28 UTC in reply to " "
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Me declines to drink the koolaid. I like being divided and helpless when I use a Microsoft product.

We noticed that a long time ago...

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]:
by Lumbergh on Sat 21st Jan 2006 15:05 UTC in reply to "RE: "
Lumbergh Member since:
2005-06-29

Me declines to drink the koolaid. I like being divided and helpless when I use a Microsoft product.

We noticed that a long time ago...


If only I would free myself from Microsoft products, I would no longer be subjugated.

Reply Score: 1

What do you want? It's Capitalism!
by Chamaeleon on Sat 21st Jan 2006 03:07 UTC
Chamaeleon
Member since:
2006-01-17

Hard to employ people when your IP is free traded, copied or given away.

My GOD! Those low life thugs are destroying the music and the movie industry sending thousands of people to unemployment and breaking families apart!

I do not approve the actions of "IT" pirates but cannot defend those industries actions too, nor the price tags.

Actually, unless, there's some kind of standars between these industries and manufactures this might increase piracy.

Shoot! I need to buy a new DVD player to see that movie I want to watch. Since I don't have the doo might as well download from the net where very ikely someone already hacked it!

Reply Score: 1

Deletomn Member since:
2005-07-06

Smartpatrol: Hard to employ people when your IP is free traded, copied or given away.

Chamaeleon: My GOD! Those low life thugs are destroying the music and the movie industry sending thousands of people to unemployment and breaking families apart!

If it was just the "big companies" that got affected by piracy. I'd have to agree it doesn't seem like a big deal, but it affects more than them.

It affects competitors. Can't beat the $0 cost of pirated stuff whether you're trying to sell someone something or give it away. For example... It's hard to convince people to switch to free (as in freedom) software when the biggest thing they care about is price and they already get pirated software for free. You can see how much damage is done to "competitors" by how pirates sometimes respond when they are FORCED to stop. Some of them switch to free software rather than pay for the non-free.

It affects customers. I don't know about all the companies, but I do know that when companies have "non-paying customers" they generally shift the "cost of that transaction" onto their paying customers. Meaning they rise prices. It also gives these companies an excuse to restrict our rights, invade our privacy, and in general view us with suspicion. Without the pirates, the excuse would be gone and it would be clear where they stand to everyone, also a lot of things probably wouldn't have come to pass (like my favorite local software store which no longer accepts returns because of all the pirates who would buy games, copy them, and then return them).

It also doesn't frequently make any sense. A perfect example of this is when someone pirates a non-free program that has a free alternative that would have worked just as well for their uses. Why would you want to pirate the non-free one, when the authors don't want you to and are doing the best they can to stop you and there is an alterative that allows you to do whatever you want and more? (Meaning view the source code, participate in its development, etc...)

Quite frankly... I'd think the free software community would be looking forward to "perfect copy protection" (doubtful it will ever arrive). Simply because then more people will switch to their software and the community will grow and gain power and influence.

Reply Score: 2

Regarding DRM
by Lumbergh on Sat 21st Jan 2006 03:57 UTC
Lumbergh
Member since:
2005-06-29

Believe it or not, I'm not a big fan of RIA or DRM. Piracy is a problem, but everytime I think of DRM I also think of those assholes in the late 70s that were fighting the manufacturers of VCRs.

Reply Score: 1

Sigh
by Sphinx on Sat 21st Jan 2006 04:06 UTC
Sphinx
Member since:
2005-07-09

I just hope someday the recording industry learns the lessons the software industry did, copy protection costs, it does not pay.

Reply Score: 1

heh
by gplCop318 on Sat 21st Jan 2006 05:26 UTC
gplCop318
Member since:
2006-01-10

RMS is a nutty guy.... but make no mistake he is the one true advocate. His views are hard to accept but sooner or later it will be too expensive to do otherwise. When companies hold your data hostage asking for one more royalty, one more license, one more upgrade when you do not need it....

RMS is a nut and probably knows that he is considered one but he is a visionary also. He is not a visionary in the capitalist sense but in the TRUE sense of seeing what is needed way down the road and realizing what will occur if we keep on the same path we are going...

RMS you can share food from my plate any time buddy - chinese ok?

Reply Score: 0

The problem with DRM...
by archiesteel on Sat 21st Jan 2006 07:30 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

...is that it doesn't work, and therefore only makes it hard for law-abiding citizens.

It takes only one pirated copy to reach the P2P networks and spread, and one can always make a near-perfect replica with re-recording the sound output, so it's ineffective. It's not making it harder for pirates, because pirates don't have to crack the songs, they can just redistribute copies...so the only people it's harder for are those who buy it and want to listen to them on the player they spent good money on.

Offer a plus-value, don't try to subvert government to protect your business model.

Reply Score: 3

RE: The problem with DRM...
by CrazyDude0 on Sat 21st Jan 2006 07:52 UTC in reply to "The problem with DRM..."
CrazyDude0 Member since:
2005-07-10

"re-recording the sound output"

It is not same quality at all. Also most audio cards will prevent ability to easily re-record the output. Windows will have techniques in kernel to prevent drivers from stealing the audio output after it is decrypted. So slowly, all the attack vectors are taken care of.

On ther other hand, DRM will also prevent most amatuer pirates. Once the number gets down to hardcore pirates, it becomes easy to crackdown on them.

Anyways, Whether we like it or not, DRM is here to stay. So stop whining.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: The problem with DRM...
by Soulbender on Sat 21st Jan 2006 12:21 UTC in reply to "RE: The problem with DRM..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"Anyways, Whether we like it or not, DRM is here to stay. So stop whining."

It's just so much easier to give up, isnt it?

Reply Score: 2

RE: The problem with DRM...
by Ronald Vos on Sat 21st Jan 2006 15:12 UTC in reply to "The problem with DRM..."
Ronald Vos Member since:
2005-07-06

I have to agree here. There will ALWAYS be someone able to get a rip/cracked copy. Even if it means hacking the Windows kernel a bit, there will be people spreading 'Do-it-yourself' cracks to enable audio/video capture. And if you can do audio/video capture during playback, you can rip. Of most pirated content out there on the p2p networks, the most shared videos/mp3s started with 1, 2 or 3 original rips, as shown by the consistent checksums.

If DRM continues down this path, they either need to fully lock down the entire processingpath from cd/dvd to hardware+software, which is impossible, or they'll make it more attractive for consumers to peruse illegal versions for use on their legal software+hardware.

If a new cd doesn't play on my legacy stereo, I'm not paying for it. And if I can play something on my legacy stereo, I can record the audiooutput via the audio-input on my soundcard. DRM doesn't win anything.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Scary
by Chamaeleon on Sat 21st Jan 2006 11:01 UTC
Chamaeleon
Member since:
2006-01-17

Archiesteel is such a RMS whore.

And what kind of whore are you? Music and movie industry whore?

You don't like DRM, don't f--kin buy DRM'ed music

When all the movie and music get DRMed I'll have to buy a new CD/DVD player while the media is basically the same (the idea of having to buy a new TV is also great!!!). All this SUCKS big time.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Scary
by Wrawrat on Sat 21st Jan 2006 18:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Scary"
Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

When all the movie and music get DRMed I'll have to buy a new CD/DVD player while the media is basically the same (the idea of having to buy a new TV is also great!!!). All this SUCKS big time.

Then don't buy the media? On that aspect, the parent poster is completely right. No wonder how DRM is shoved in our lives if people keep thinking "resistance is futile" and flinch...

I won't buy any consumer media with DRM, even if it means I will have to live with low definition content. If people were standing against it, there will be no demand. If there is no demand, there is no sales. If there is no sales, there is no money. If there is no money, they will change their mind or die. Either scenario isn't bad since the latter is likely to bring a new model.

I don't necessarily share RMS' view. I just stand for my rights.

Reply Score: 1

To: Deletomn
by Chamaeleon on Sat 21st Jan 2006 11:06 UTC
Chamaeleon
Member since:
2006-01-17

I was talking about the music and movie industry.

I have to agree with you about software and I agree that game companies use all that software to protect their products. I'm not against piracy protection. The major difference is that games work in every computer cd player.

That's the reason that I only use OSS even in my Windows partition, except XARA Xtreme wich was bought at a reasonable price I might add.

Reply Score: 2

Interesting
by kaiwai on Sat 21st Jan 2006 12:12 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

Interesting how people whine about the perceived evils of DRM, but are quite happy to whore themselves off to Microsoft by using Windows and Office - the constant whine of 'anti-Microsoftism' and still uses their products.

Oh, and as for music - don't buy it; sooner or later, when people simply stop buying DRM music, music companies will be told straight out that their product ISN'T important to the existance of humanity, and can be ignored just an other product being sold that isn't required for living.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Interesting
by dammage on Sat 21st Jan 2006 13:17 UTC in reply to "Interesting"
dammage Member since:
2006-01-08

those who don't like DRM, don't buy it. Those who pretend that they like DRM either heard the buzzword DeaReM and how cool it is and blindly believe it or are trolls.

And the rest? The rest is by many times bigger than both former fractions together and doesn't even know what DRM means. They are happy that their iPod plays their music and that they can insert an MP3-collection borrowed from their friend into their DVD-player.

While they know that this "pirated" mp3 collection is not their own (they'll have to return the CD to its owner), they don't realize that the DRM they buy isn't their, too.

They are just ignorant and don't care and thus will proceed buying. There are enough sheep for the distributors who are giving away money for a service in belief that they actually get a material.

While a joe can determine the difference between HIS laptop and time-based internet connection (he pays per minute), he can't understand the difference between HIS software/music/video (in terms of free as freedom content) and THEIR software/music/video (DRM, EULA clauses etc) since they don't even know what a licence it.

Just ignoring a product/service does nothing, you have to convince the ignorant ones to loudly ignore such services/products.

Going every day to burger king just because you know that McDonald's employees piss into the hamburgers brings nothing, once enough demostrants stand in front of McDonalds with shields as "Stop the P.I.S.S." and telling ppl who want to enter McDonalds why these demostrants are pissed off, makes the manager think a bit.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Interesting
by g2devi on Sat 21st Jan 2006 21:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Interesting"
g2devi Member since:
2005-07-09

> Just ignoring a product/service does nothing, you have
> to convince the ignorant ones to loudly ignore such
> services/products.

Convincing joeuser isn't that difficult. When joe discovers that his music doesn't work on another computer, he balks. When joeuser discovers that he's billed twice for rewinding a movie he balks. When joeuser discovers that he can't play his music on old devices, he balks. When joeuser decides to watch a movie he purchased in another country and it doesn't work, he balks. When joeuser discovers that a new DVD requires that he upgrade his entire stereo system, he balks. When joeuser is put on the upgrade threadmill just because DRM manufacturers want more money from you. he balks.

DRM is just bad economics. By hobbling their products for legitimate users, DRM manufactures are increasing the value of pirate copies and pirate hardware that are not hobbled. It's simple supply and demand. Where there's an unmet demand, there will always be someone to fill the supply (witness the number of players that ignore region coding and the number of legitimate movies that are region free). The best way to combat piracy is to treat people fairly. There is a personal cost when people pirate -- they have to spend time hunting for the stuff they want and they have to deal with imperfect copies or lower quality. People would much rather pay for convenience (which is why most business schools tell you to never compete on price, you'll always be underbid even if you sell below cost). They also have to deal with the uneasiness of not supporting the people who created the music/movie/software. One of the great things about switching from Windows to Linux is that you're not a pirate when you make copies. The only thing open source asks (politely) is that you support the cause in some way (either by helping others or contribute code or documentation). It's amazingly liberating to do the right thing and have fun doing it. Since moving to Linux, I'm very strict with licenses. I either accept them and pay for them (e.g. VMWare) or do without (e.g. software that would result in a GPL violation). I'm this way the few times I'm on Windows. People want to support the original creators of music/movies/software and people want to do the right thing, so DRM producers are shooting themselves in the foot by treating their users as criminals who owe them a living.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Interesting
by Smartpatrol on Sun 22nd Jan 2006 05:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Interesting"
Smartpatrol Member since:
2005-07-06

What you are talking about is consumerism. The power of the consumer drives the capitalistic system. Look what happened with Sonyís DRM attempt with their faux root kit install it ended up blowing up in their face.

The greatness of FOSS should be argued from a technical standpoint not an ideological standpoint as RMS does. I just donít buy the idea of free software for the good of mankind, RMSs torch. Linus has given us a great gift with Linux he has empowered a lot of people and companies have been created based on his efforts. Ask yourself who would you rather champion FOSS Linus or RMS?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Oh boy!
by barkholt on Sat 21st Jan 2006 14:11 UTC
barkholt
Member since:
2005-12-13

No, RMS should definitely not stay in any closet - if idealists like him stay away, you can bet that pragmatism will ensure that FOSS will die a slow death.

I can't believe how many people are falling over themselves to ridicule his views, but please remember what all his work has let to.

Reply Score: 2

And in practice ...
by moleskine on Sat 21st Jan 2006 14:52 UTC
moleskine
Member since:
2005-11-05

My difficulty here is that RMS is a utopian with an absolutist agenda. The article makes this plain, with phrases like "completely evil" (of DRM) or "divided and helpless" (of Microsoft users whom the company has "subjugated"). This is the language of the pulpit.

But the world is not black and white and attempts to paint it so never work. Why should I trust GPL 3.0 if behind it someone is pushing an agenda? Why should I expect the GPL 3.0 to work if its provisions are designed for the express purpose of not working other than by fiat? It some ways, this is a highly authoritarian stance that simply mirrors the other side's approach: do what we say, or you cannot do it at all.

Software is just software. It doesn't cook breakfast or make you a better person. These constant attempts to politicize f/oss are a pain. They spread misunderstanding and they deter a lot of folks from using it, I suspect - especially corporate ones. They are also becoming intimidatory. One effect - probably deliberate - is to make developers feel that if they don't GPL their work there must be something morally wrong with them, and they'll face criticism and a cold shoulder.

So: the GPL is just as much of a yoke as any other licence. By subscribing to it I am giving up the right to think for myself and doing what someone else tells me I must do. It may all be visionary, it may all be idealistic but mostly RMS and the GPL 3.0 strike me as authoritarian and hopelessly impractical.

Reply Score: 2

RE: And in practice ...
by Lumbergh on Sat 21st Jan 2006 15:20 UTC in reply to "And in practice ..."
Lumbergh Member since:
2005-06-29

My difficulty here is that RMS is a utopian with an absolutist agenda. The article makes this plain, with phrases like "completely evil" (of DRM) or "divided and helpless" (of Microsoft users whom the company has "subjugated"). This is the language of the pulpit.


I don't even know if RMS believes that crap. I tend to believe that it's just fodder for the weak-minded drones.

But the world is not black and white and attempts to paint it so never work. Why should I trust GPL 3.0 if behind it someone is pushing an agenda? Why should I expect the GPL 3.0 to work if its provisions are designed for the express purpose of not working other than by fiat? It some ways, this is a highly authoritarian stance that simply mirrors the other side's approach: do what we say, or you cannot do it at all.

Yes, RMS isn't very inclusive. Notice his comments about OSI: "We're not interested in the Open Source Initiative's approval of licenses. We've been judging licenses as to whether they are free software licenses many years before there was an OSI. They're entitled to have their own opinions and have nothing, particularly, to do with our movement."

Software is just software. It doesn't cook breakfast or make you a better person. These constant attempts to politicize f/oss are a pain. They spread misunderstanding and they deter a lot of folks from using it, I suspect - especially corporate ones.

Exactly, and I'll add that these people also attempt to anthropomorphize software as well.

They are also becoming intimidatory. One effect - probably deliberate - is to make developers feel that if they don't GPL their work there must be something morally wrong with them, and they'll face criticism and a cold shoulder.

I don't think most open source developers really care who thinks what of them if they do or don't use the GPL.

It may all be visionary, it may all be idealistic but mostly RMS and the GPL 3.0 strike me as authoritarian and hopelessly impractical.

Yes, and you know that it irks Stallman that the kernel isn't under the copyright of the FSF/GNU. All contributors to GNU/FSF projects are forced into copyright assignment.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: And in practice ...
by tomcat on Sat 21st Jan 2006 19:10 UTC in reply to "RE: And in practice ..."
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

I don't even know if RMS believes that crap. I tend to believe that it's just fodder for the weak-minded drones.

Go read Stallman's website. I think you're going to find that he DOES believe those things. He's one scary freak...

Reply Score: 0

DRM is a joke
by JeffS on Sat 21st Jan 2006 18:15 UTC
JeffS
Member since:
2005-07-12

To all the anti-F/OSS, anti-RMS, anti-Linux, anti-freedom, anti-democracy, anti-consumer, and anti-competition (and anti-common sense and reason) trolls here (Lumberg, LinuxIsPoo, Smartpatrol, moleskin, et al), repeat after me ...

DRM DOES NOT STOP PIRACY!!!!!

In every case, every DRM scheme has been cracked by pirates.

The whole phenomenon is analogous to the "The Club" - ya know, that club thingy that you put on your steering wheel that was supposed to stop car theft and which car theives could easily break through in less than 30 seconds.

The pirates will always be able to crack any DRM scheme that the big corporations come up with.

Pirates laugh at DRM.

So who does DRM end up hurting? CONSUMERS!!!. DRM only ends up being a major hassle/limitation for honest consumers who purchased their content fair and square.

And RMS is right. DRM limits fair use rights. If I buy a CD, I both want and expect to be able to play it on a number of devices and my PC and an MP3 player. I also want and expect to be able to share my purchased music with my family, friends, neighbors, whatever. If I buy a book, I should be able to loan it to a friend. I should be able to loan my drill or skillsaw to my neighbor. DRM limits all of that. That is a fact.

And the only reason consumers tolerate it is because of ignorance - they usually don't realize the limitations, until they encounter it first hand (after already making the purchase), then they complain about it.

Finally, the really funny, ironic thing about DRM is that the corporations using it will only end up pissing off their customers, and shoot themselves in the foot by losing said customers to smaller, smarter, more agile competitors who are driven by customer satisfaction.

Overall CD/movie/content purchasing is way down over the last 2-3 years, and the anti-customer stance of the big corporations is the exact reason why.

It does not occur to the big corps that maybe they could increase sales by delivering a superior product to that which can be shared on the internet - ya know - a value add proposition.

But NoooOOOoooo, they go for making their product decidedly worse (by including idiotic DRM) than that which can be shared on the internet (which has no such inconveniences).

They are so short sighted and stupid it's laughable.

Edited 2006-01-21 18:33

Reply Score: 3

v RE: DRM is a joke
by Lumbergh on Sat 21st Jan 2006 18:51 UTC in reply to "DRM is a joke"
RE: DRM is a joke
by tomcat on Sat 21st Jan 2006 19:07 UTC in reply to "DRM is a joke"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

DRM DOES NOT STOP PIRACY!!!!!

In every case, every DRM scheme has been cracked by pirates.


DRM isn't supposed to "STOP PIRACY". That's impossible (so you can stop flogging your straw man now). What it's designed to do is increase the cost and hassle to the average person sufficiently that they will choose to conform with the manufacturers' copyright. For example, the average person has no idea how to copy DVDs or pirate cable TV; in order to do that,they have to turn to people who have made it their mission to crack DRM. But not everybody is going to be willing to use cracking software or buy pirate cable boxes because (a) it's illegal and carries steep penalties, (b) it's a hassle, (c) the actual cost of DVDs is pretty low (it's not difficult to find DVD's for $8 or $9 now, so unless your time is worth less than that amount, you're actually wasting money by pirating DVDs), and (d) there are usually quality trade-offs (video artifacts, loss of features, etc) involved in going from mastered media to DVD+/-R that many people will not accept.

Overall CD/movie/content purchasing is way down over the last 2-3 years, and the anti-customer stance of the big corporations is the exact reason why.

It has nothing to do with the "anti-customer stance of the big corporations". It has to do with the fact that CDs lacked DRM -- and ripping is so laughably simple.

But NoooOOOoooo, they go for making their product decidedly worse (by including idiotic DRM) than that which can be shared on the internet (which has no such inconveniences). They are so short sighted and stupid it's laughable.

Here's a fact that blows your argument to shreds: DVD sales have exploded over the past 5 years, despite the fact that they contain DRM.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: DRM is a joke
by Wrawrat on Sat 21st Jan 2006 19:31 UTC in reply to "RE: DRM is a joke"
Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

Here's a fact that blows your argument to shreds: DVD sales have exploded over the past 5 years, despite the fact that they contain DRM.

Just a precision: relatively few DVDs are including DRM, while most DVDs for the customer market are including an encryption system (CSS) providing some protection against copying.

Out of memory, only WMA9 DVDs have DRM schemes on them.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: DRM is a joke
by tomcat on Sun 22nd Jan 2006 05:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: DRM is a joke"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

We're talking about content protection. I know you were just being precise; however, regardless of whether content protection involves CSS or other forms of rights management, that's pretty irrelevant. The basic point is the same: Despite the fact that DVDs employ content protection, sales have exploded. That completely blows away the original post that argued that content protection supresses the market.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: DRM is a joke
by JeffS on Mon 23rd Jan 2006 17:15 UTC in reply to "RE: DRM is a joke"
JeffS Member since:
2005-07-12

"What it's designed to do is increase the cost and hassle to the average person sufficiently that they will choose to conform with the manufacturers' copyright. "

The thing is, the average consumer is not a problem to the manufacturers. They are not losing revenue because some occasionally downloads something, or just wants to play their CD in their car stereo. Besides, apparently (according to market research) the biggest downloaders also tend to be the biggest purchasers of music/movies. So in all reality, the manufacturers are not, or should not be, worried about causal file sharing.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Scary
by re_re on Sat 21st Jan 2006 18:26 UTC
re_re
Member since:
2005-07-06

>Also, think about this .. if there was no piracy, there would be no consumer DRM<

I think piracy has little to do with DRM, I would venture to say that by far the vast majority of music, movies, and software that are pirated would never be purchased either way. Companies say they are losing so much money to piracy but realistically, how many people that download the latest adobe products illegally would really go out and buy them? the flip side of the argument is they could potentially gain sales because people play with their software and learn it and potentally buy it down the road.

DRM is a highly unethical and currently legal way of limiting the rights of consumers as to how they can use media/software they have legally purchased as to make them pay extra or subscribe to get the full use of the product (it's all about the money)

(adobe was just an example)

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Scary
by archiesteel on Sat 21st Jan 2006 20:46 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

Exactly. I would have responded to CrazyDude0 myself, but his post has been modded down so low that the "Reply" button is deactivated.

Ignoring the personal attacks and insults (which do more harm than good to his ideological position), I'll simply say that it is precisely because I do NOT pirate music that DRM causes me aggravation. If I had downloaded an illegally shared copy of the latest album of Korn instead of buying it, I wouldn't have had to jump through hoops to put it on the iPod. And, yes, the album is already available on the P2P networks (I asked an acquaintance who shares to check for me).

So here we have a very good example of how DRM has no effects on pirates, but makes life more difficult for law-abiding citizens.

CrazyDude0, next time please try to offer a rebuttal instead of insulting me...

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: The problem with DRM...
by archiesteel on Sat 21st Jan 2006 20:56 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

It is not same quality at all.

Neither are mp3s, dude.

Also most audio cards will prevent ability to easily re-record the output.

You don't know anything about sound recording, do you?

Here's a hint: plug the output of the sound card into the output of a quality sound system, plug the output of the sound system into another computer with audio input (or the same PC, if it has two cards). There is virtually no quality loss, at least none that is noticeable by the human ear, and certainly much less than what you get when you convert a .wav file into a .mp3. And no "techniques in kernel" will be able to prevent that.

Note that this is not necessary right now, because you can create a virtual device and record its output all in software.

It takes only one pirate to do that and flood the P2P networks with it...and that pirate need only be in China or Russia for the RIAA to be powerless against him, even if they somehow had the power to find him (which, as anyone would tell you, is virtually impossible if the pirate is wise enough). So you are talking about a losing battle here.

Now consider the alternative: people who buy songs off of music service on the Internet. Why would these people share the songs? After all, they paid for them, so they are likely to be against piracy. You have to realize that the overwhelming majority of pirates are leechers, and don't actually rip out the songs themselves, so in fact there's no reason to believe that legally selling unprotected .mp3s on the Internet would in fact increase the piracy of these songs.

Ergo, DRM is a lost battle that antagonizes paying customers, not pirates, and as such is the wrong approach. Offering a plus-value to paying customers, on the other hand, IS a winning solution, as demonstrated by the ITMS.

Reply Score: 1

h times nue equals e Member since:
2006-01-21

A little nitpick : I guess it should read "plug the output of the sound card into the input of a quality sound system" rather than a second output.

(Otherwise you would fry either your sound system or (more likely) the soundcard)

Beside this, very well put argument !

Reply Score: 1

Some thoughts
by h times nue equals e on Sat 21st Jan 2006 21:12 UTC
h times nue equals e
Member since:
2006-01-21

While I read the comments in this thread (esp. from those users who would prefer RMS to stay silent and "in the closet"), I had a strange deja vu, I would like to share with you :

According to the documentary "Imagine Imagine", several religous groups contacted Yoko Ono for permission to use "Imagine" as a spiritual song during their services. They had the additional request to replace the line "and no religions too" or to change it into something "more fitting" for them. However, they didn't succeeded in getting permission for the change from Yoko (which somehow surprised me, given the fact, that Mr. Lennons widow is quite successful in monetizing/advertising her late husbands name).

Those groups wanted to use the familiar music, wanted to sing along the parts they liked, but also wanted desperatly to spare out the parts they couldn't agree with.

So go on, remove the political aspects from Free Software, remove the things you summarize with "lefty views" (btw: being either right or left from the political center is no absolute observable, it is merrely an indicator where your community or country somehow fixes the center. I live in a middle European country, where many moderate US liberals would be considered moderate conservatives, at least by our standards), quit with this useless "morality" and "ethics" stuff, put RMS into a closet and remove everything that could somehow bother somebody and prevent him/her from using it.

Do it, you will end up with a parody of what Free Software actually (at least now) is and has been.

I don't share RMS views in all points, but at least I know for what he stands.

(Sorry for my English, it's only my third language, but I'm trying)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: DRM is a joke
by archiesteel on Sat 21st Jan 2006 21:19 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

DRM isn't supposed to "STOP PIRACY". That's impossible (so you can stop flogging your straw man now). What it's designed to do is increase the cost and hassle to the average person sufficiently that they will choose to conform with the manufacturers' copyright.

...or choose not to buy the product at all, if the hassles go against the rights of "fair use" as described in copyright law.

But this is irrelevant, since it only takes one semi-determined person to do it before illegal copies flood the P2P networks.

To me, a better strategy is not to fight piracy at all, but rather to offer a plus-value to paying customers. You know, following this little thing known as "free market economics"?

Here's a fact that blows your argument to shreds: DVD sales have exploded over the past 5 years, despite the fact that they contain DRM.

One could also say that DVD sales have exploded over the past 5 years despite the fact that you can easily find copies of the films on P2P networkds, and that ripping DVDs is trivial.

Ergo, DRM is useless, and only serves to antagonize paying customers. On the other hand, customers are more than willing to pay for content when there is a plus-value associated with it (nice packaging, added content, ease of purchase/acquisition, low price point, etc.)

The music and film industries need to focus on those who do pay to obtain their IP, rather than those who don't. I don't pirate music or films, but I will oppose any efforts by these industries to limit my technological freedom.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Scary
by archiesteel on Sat 21st Jan 2006 21:21 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

Restrictions that you cannot vote or modify because the licence itself is copyrighted by the FSF.

That's not true, you can very well modify the content of the GPL and apply that new license to your work (you just can't call it the GPL, which is completely legitimate to avoid legal confusion).

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Scary
by Wrawrat on Sat 21st Jan 2006 21:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Scary"
Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

Only if you are the owner of the copyrighted file. If the owner doesn't want to make a change to the licence, he got the final word, even if the majority of its user base would like a compromise.

As for modifications of the GPL itself. One of the first lines of the GPL is:
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

That said, they grant you the right from doing so, but you have to respect some conditions other than changing its name:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL

True, it's completely legitimate. In fact, I would say it's necessary. I guess I should have used better wording, but it doesn't change my main point, which is that democracy got nothing to do with licences.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Scary
by dylansmrjones on Sat 21st Jan 2006 22:28 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Scary"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Only if you are the owner of the copyrighted file. If the owner doesn't want to make a change to the licence, he got the final word, even if the majority of its user base would like a compromise.

Well, that's the way it is with licenses. If you don't like it, switch to a product with a proprietary license, and see if you can manage to get _that_ changed.

When I first compared principles behind GPL with the principles in democracy, it was the principle of putting on certain restrictions to secure the freedom for everybody, opposite proprietary licenses which grants no freedom at all, or the BSD license which shares a great resemblance with anarchy (which is quite nice IMO).

I did so, because lumbergh called it communism. And as a libertarian I don't like being called a communist ;)

Reply Score: 1

uh
by gplCop318 on Sun 22nd Jan 2006 08:01 UTC
gplCop318
Member since:
2006-01-10

yea this new system works wonders...

since we stopped allowing anonymous posts we dont have troll posts at all, or flamebait at all, or OT posts at all...

its great!

Reply Score: 1

The truth about DMCA
by dylansmrjones on Sun 22nd Jan 2006 11:07 UTC
dylansmrjones
Member since:
2005-10-02

http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20060122

Now, that's what I call truth in backronyms ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: The problem with DRM...
by archiesteel on Sun 22nd Jan 2006 19:17 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

Right, that was a mistake on my part - or perhaps I meant to write it that way, so would-be analog pirate wannabes would fry their soundcards! :-P

Reply Score: 1