Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 2nd Jan 2012 19:12 UTC
Permalink for comment 502229
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-04-11
Guys, i never said DRM is good (it's bad). What i am saying is that "free software" can get infected with DRM by tivo-ization, so Stallman pretending "free software" can't have DRM is a bit dumb. "Free software" can get infected by DRM just as proprietary can. The last thing we need is companies "whitewashing" their DRM mechanisms by open sourcing them (tivo-ized open source obviously) and claim that "it's free software it can't have DRM/be bad for you". IMO, the anti-DRM and "free software" are two seperate campaigns.
Anti-DRM campain: Stop violating my fair use rights like ability to make parodies, backups etc (reasonable demand).
"Free software" campaign: "Free" your software or else i will bad mouth you whenever given the chance (unreasonable demand)
This is why i hate the FSF , because it lumps together reasonable demands (anti-DRM) with unreasonable ones (all software should be "free")
PS: It's not the authors that decide what you can do when you purchase a copy of their works, it's the laws. And the laws grant you a right to make short parodies, make personal backups and do format shifting. So the main argument of the DRM supporters that "the author doesn't want you to do that" is moot.
Edited 2012-01-05 13:16 UTC