Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 2nd Jan 2012 19:12 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source Late last year, president Obama signed a law that makes it possible to indefinitely detain terrorist suspects without any form of trial or due process. Peaceful protesters in Occupy movements all over the world have been labelled as terrorists by the authorities. Initiatives like SOPA promote diligent monitoring of communication channels. Thirty years ago, when Richard Stallman launched the GNU project, and during the three decades that followed, his sometimes extreme views and peculiar antics were ridiculed and disregarded as paranoia - but here we are, 2012, and his once paranoid what-ifs have become reality.
Thread beginning with comment 502008
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

shrmerl,

"DRM is just bad, whether it's free software or not. Forget the syntax sugar. But if you want to extend the definition of 'free' as DRM free - I'm OK with it."

I agree, "free" is a very vague word to begin with. The english language fails to disambiguate between all the concepts of freedom we'd like to talk about today. While I would not hold it against someone for using a definition of free which is different from mine, to me there is something decidedly unfree about DRM, which serves to control users.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Brendan Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

While I would not hold it against someone for using a definition of free which is different from mine, to me there is something decidedly unfree about DRM, which serves to control users.


Content providers should be free to choose to provide DRM protected content if they want to; and users/consumers should be free to choose to pay for that DRM protected content if they want to. Someone who advocates freedom would not attempt to deny other people's freedom to choose (including the freedom to choose DRM).

However, I do think that content providers should be forced (via. appropriate legislation) to make a reasonable effort to ensure that consumers are aware of any/all restrictions (not necessarily just DRM) that have been placed on their content; so that consumers are able to make an informed choice. Burying something in 3 pages of legalese does not constitute a reasonable effort.

-Brendan

Reply Parent Score: 2

spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

Someone who advocates freedom would not attempt to deny other people's freedom to choose

freedom is relative to a subject. It makes no sense in your sentence. When used as an empty word like in your sentence, it is just a propaganda tool that rings a bell in some weak people minds.
Some people want to be free to preach their religion. Some other people want to be free from religious propaganda.
Abortionists want the freedom to kill their fetus. Anti abortionist want their fetus to have the freedom to live.
They both want freedom but there is no absolute freedom. Their freedom is relative to the way they live. What they actually want is having it their way but instead of saying I want that, they say I want the freedom to do that as you have been raised to think that freedom is sacred. It's just a propaganda trick.

So in your sentence, some people want the freedom to use DRM. Some other people want the freedom to use their media without DRM. You can't have it both ways. Either you have DRM or you don't. But using the word freedom is misleading.
Let's just put it this way:
* The Media corporations want to include DRM.
* Consumers don't want DRM.
Now check what is your best interest. Are you a media corporation or a consumer? If you are a media corporation then you will side with the corporations and fight for DRM. If you are a consumer, then you will side against the corporations.

If you, as a consumer, side with the media corporation, it's because the corporation has won this fight before fighting, using propaganda. And that is quite logical for a media corporation to use propaganda, they are a well oiled propaganda machine. They knew that talking about freedom would affect your judgement.

Reply Parent Score: 4

shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

No. One simple example in which DRM is not a valid choice for anyone, and can't be justified. Content providers for example might want you to play the media file only through means they want (like in specific player, on specific hardware etc.). But if you paid for it - you should be free to play it the way you want. However DRM will try to force DMCA like laws, trying to ban such activity as "illegal". This is not justified, and DRM is defective by design.

Reply Parent Score: 3