lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Apr]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!]
    On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 10:21:07AM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
    > On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 10:53:52AM -0600, Dax Kelson wrote:
    > > On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Larry McVoy wrote:
    > >
    > > > Your post shows that you think that the reaction is bad and you even say
    > > > that the reaction is likely. You vigourously disagree with my conclusions
    > > > as to why the reaction is happening, I see that. OK, so let's try it
    > > > with a question rather than a statement: why are things like the DMCA and
    > > > DRM happening? It isn't the open source guys pushing those, obviously,
    > > > it's the corporations. So why are they doing it?
    > >
    > > DRM/DMCA do nothing to address reimplementation (it can't, see all
    > > previous posts on how it is a LEGAL activity).
    > >
    > > In my observation, DRM/DMCA addresses unauthorized audio and video content
    > > copying.
    > >
    > > So, if Open Source is all about reimplementation, and DRM/DMCA is about
    > > "protecting" audio/video content, where is the connection?
    >
    > "Trusted Computing/Palladium" stuff is clearly headed in the direction
    > of encrypting everything, the only place it lands unencrypted is on
    > your display. I thought that fell under the heading of DRM but maybe
    > I'm mistaken.
    >
    > I believe the point of that is "huh, people are going to copy our program?
    > OK, well, we're a monopoly, you have use our programs to generate the
    > data, we encrypt the data and poof! the reimplemented programs are
    > worthless".
    >
    > That line of reasoning, by the way, only works if they are a monopoly,
    > i.e., it doesn't work real well for BK, there are lots of other source
    > management systems. But it works very well for things like Word,
    > that's a de facto standard, contrary to what some people here believe
    > it is bloody difficult to negotiate a contract in anything but Word.
    > Try sending a lawyer anything else and you'll see what I mean.
    >
    > So I don't agree that the DRM stuff is all about protecting audio/video
    > content at all, I think it goes much further than that. Maybe I'm
    > wrong, maybe DRM isn't all about that, but the point remains that there
    > is lots of activity in the directions I'm describing and whether it
    > falls under DRM, DMCA, Trusted Computing, Palladium, of BuzzWord2000,
    > the activity exists. And I think it exists at least in part because
    > of the threat of the open source reimplementations. I'm starting to
    > think I'm the only person on this list who thinks that, that may be,
    > but in the business world that I move in pretty much everyone thinks that.
    >
    > The open source thing is a new twist, it's changing the playing field.
    > That can be good (it has been so far) but it can be bad too if the
    > corporations get all paranoid, which is what they look like to me.
    >
    > What you do about it is an open question. My thought has been to focus
    > on creating new stuff that creates its own world of users and advocates.
    > Going back to Word, if there was a word processing system that was better
    > than Word and people switched to it, then any attempt by Microsoft to lock
    > up the data is irrelevant. Apply that pattern to any application which
    > operates on data - if you let any corporation have the best technology and
    > become a monopoly then they can lock up the data and you're shut out of
    > the game. That's one of the reasons I sort of think the BK clone attempts
    > are pointless, we can change the file format or encrypt it and unless
    > there is some other compelling reason to use the clone, it's irrelevant.
    > On the other hand, make something different and better and BK becomes
    > irrelevant (unless we do leapfrog with some new feature/whatever).
    >
    > That's what I meant by chasing. If you are chasing the leader you are
    > automatically more at risk because you are trying to play in the leader's
    > playing field and they can change the rules to screw you up. You build
    > a better playing field and you turn the tables, now the leader is the
    > follower and they have to play by your rules.
    > --
    > ---
    > Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
    > -
    > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



    What about the people who cannot use bk because the license doesn't permit
    them?They feed off the hourly kernel.org snapshots?
    The BK clone doesn't have to be a clone always, but it has to start off with
    that coz thats what is being used for linux currently. Maybe that won't be
    requiredif you change the license to a bit more friendlier one.

    This thread has become a few metres long now, but it as simple as 'open source
    for better software, hidden source for better chances of making money'

    -
    -
    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:35    [W:3.445 / U:0.084 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site