On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 00:50 +0100, Richard Lockwood wrote: > Andy, > > You've completely missed the point of my argument. > > While we can bicker over the technical details of DRM systems involved, > the fact is that the majority of "facts" presented in that letter are > not facts at all. Let's go through the points one by one. Again. > > 1. DRM Doesn't work. I'm prepared to agree with this.
OK, so you'll concede the most important fact is actually true. That must be why your first mail started off with entirely gratuitous Ad Hominem, to distract from your error? > 2. As I originally wrote, it's a moot point as to weather it stops > copying on an industrial scale. It probably doesn't. > I thought I said that. Maybe I wasn't clear. Let me try again. I > don't think that DRM works to stop piracy. On the other hand, I don't > see any better options. If DRM doesn't actually work, as we seem to agree.... then why do you not see "no DRM" as a better option? If DRM doesn't prevent illegal copying or viewing 'outside the window', then what _does_ it achieve? Other than a highly dubious lock-in to proprietary software, that is. > That's the main point - the BBC is the wrong target here. Your target > should be people like, like, well, like yourself. Come up with a > model that can cope with: > a) Giving data away for free, and > b) Compensating the creators of that data > and you're fu**ing laughing. The BBC have operated that model for decades. /me looks at the unencrypted MPEG data stream flowing across his home network from the DVB-S card in the box in the corner... it's _trivial_ for me to stick that on a DVD and flog it on the street corner, and it's far better quality than anything I can be bothered to download over my crappy DSL line. -- dwmw2 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
