[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 15:58, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> You asked. My opinion:
>
> <soapbox>
> I don't think it is good business if it is done
> knowingly. It isn't honest and it isn't fair.
> My ethics may sound like the Mickey Mouse Club,
> and Bob Keeshan redux but it is the best I know.
No need to apologize. I'm sincerely trying to figure out what you're
trying to say.
> It is stupid. We can play hard and still
> make a profit. I mean, dammit, how much
> stuff does one need?
It seems fairly clear to me that Daryl McBride does not share this
outlook. Nonetheless, I recall only your criticism of his opponents and
none of him. That is an example of why I desire explanation.
> But I ask you this: what is the limited period,
> will we accept technical means (eg, DRM) to protect
> it, and will WE as a culture and as individuals
> work just as hard to protect the creator's rights?
>
Uh Len, which DRM scheme? Like software patents, the principle might be
fine, but a given implementation could be worse than none at all. The
present scheme was sketched out in the 18th century to benefit the
creators, and has been hijacked to benefit pretty much only the
manufacturers and publishers. I feel very confident that any DRM scheme
endorsed by the RIAA will at most throw crumbs to the actual creators.
Frank
|
