Buddha Buck wrote: ...
There is a growing concern among the professional musicians' organisations about this new proposed DRM regime. You can be assured that when the battle begins, all musicians, pros and amateurs will fight on the same side.
In order for various DIgital Rights Managment schemes to work to prevent piracy, the digital players can only play works you have rights to play. This requires that the rights be encoded in the digital media, and signed in such a way to prevent forgery or undetected modification. If it isn't signed, or isn't signed by a trusted (in the eyes of the DRM software) party, the DRM software won't play the media.
They don't stand a chance!
If this DRM scheme is to suceed, it has to be mandatory and non-DRM channels have to be prohibited. Otherwise, consumers who don't want to deal with the DRM BS will simply use existing or new non-DRM tools.
Guess who will control the "trusted" signing keys? Guess how successful any DRM policy will be?
That's the real sad thing about this whole thing. So much resources wasted on an idea that are neither good nor possible....
In this particular case there's no difference whatsoever between censorship and abusive copyrights.
There is an old saying that "The Internet treats censorship as damage, and routes around it." I think it can be updated to say "The Internet treats abusive copyrights as damage, and routes around it."
Frank Nordberg
http://www.musicaviva.com
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
