Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 2nd Feb 2009 21:23 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 346824
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Enough with the DRM.
by ssa2204 on Tue 3rd Feb 2009 06:55
in reply to "RE: Enough with the DRM."
RE[2]: Enough with the DRM.
by ggeldenhuys on Tue 3rd Feb 2009 07:14
in reply to "RE: Enough with the DRM."
The thing is ... I am the owner of the machine, and the one who paid for it, I am the one who defines what the machine should be used for, I am the one who would pay for any software it needs to achieve that, and hence I am the one who should be able to say what software I want to run on said machine.
Hey, you sound like me some 6 years ago. Since then I switched to Linux and have never been happier. I tried various distros, but found Ubuntu to be a good balance of what I need and install size. Linux give the user all the control - just the way I like it. Not to mention that my company's IT depart is just too happy. They never hear any issue from me - I never have viruses, my system never crashes etc...
RE[2]: Enough with the DRM.
by Soulbender on Tue 3rd Feb 2009 11:18
in reply to "RE: Enough with the DRM."
RE[3]: Enough with the DRM.
by lemur2 on Tue 3rd Feb 2009 12:01
in reply to "RE[2]: Enough with the DRM."
"I am the owner of the machine, and the one who paid for it, I am the one who defines what the machine should be used for,
And you have that choice. It's as simple as not running an OS that conflicts with what you want. "
Indeed, that is the ideal solution ... for me. Now.
However, in and of itself, it is insufficient. If Microsoft gets away with Windows-DRM on the majority of hardware in the future, then it is possibly that content providers will decide then to supply only Windows-DRM content.
If that happens, then I will become disenfranchised out of being able to enjoy media content where and when I want, even if I am willing to pay for it. This will happen through no fault of my own, but rather through the laziness of many others (sheeple). That is not a good potential outcome ... for anyone (other than perhaps big media).
Better for me to point out the pitfalls (for the average consumer) of DRM and lock-in right now, in the hope that the "there is no harm in Vista DRM" propagandist myth might die an immediate death right away.




Member since:
2007-02-17
DRM is some unremoveable software on a Windows Vista machine that is put there at the behest of the media owner. You said so yourself.
The thing is ... I am the owner of the machine, and the one who paid for it, I am the one who defines what the machine should be used for, I am the one who would pay for any software it needs to achieve that, and hence I am the one who should be able to say what software I want to run on said machine.
Likewise, I am the one who would purchase any content. I should be the one who gets to say where and when I enjoy that content.
If media owners and software providers believe they have any right to use my resources (my machine) to their ends ... they have another think coming. Guess again.
I'm not putting up with shoddy, slow-as-molasses Vista on my machine because some idiot American media mogul and his equally crass software company executive crony thinks I should.
Vista is not an upgrade. Of anything.
If one is going to take the trouble to migrate, then anyone with an ounce of sanity would move as far away from the clearly-not-built-for-my-purposes Vista as they possibly could.
Edited 2009-02-03 04:05 UTC