Alex Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...] > First bullet point was simple - as an example, the group were presented > as the "open source" people, even though no-one there was presenting as > such in any way, and made no representation to speak as such. That set > the tone - the argument was presupposed to be one being made on a > pro-sharing agenda.
It's tedious and a lot of people take a lot of flak for correcting people, but I'm convinced it is necessary to correct people gently when they trot out these incorrect assumptions, else you've lost the argument almost before you start speaking. > Second - questions we were asked centred around why we wanted to stop > people using DRM. Fundamentally I think that's difficult/impossible to > defend, it's a restriction on choice and the 'vote with your wallet' > response is compelling. It's a pretty easy one to defend IMO. DRM is a weak lock-out propped up by legal protectionism. You can't "vote with your wallet" because the only copy of these monopoly goods (and copyright is a monopoly) is the DRM one in most cases. There is no choice, no competition. I can't see how anyone can put forward a "free market" argument for this protectionism with a straight face. It's even worse in the few cases where DRM is used to try to wipe out an entire market section in one fell swoop, by making devices which only play DRM-locked media, or refusing to co-operate with standards for CD audio or DVB. [...] > In order to argue effectively against DRM, I think we really need to > understand the premise for DRM. Basically, the APIG questions all boiled > down to "How would <x creative industry> work without IP protection?" - This is essentially a repeat of "how can a commons ever be sustainable?" I think looking back to the enclosures shows the sort of arguments which will be used, but the perverse nature of digital reproduction (a limitless low-cost fountain of perfect copies) means that the commons could easily outperform a monopoly. I agree you probably don't want to have that wider argument during a narrow DRM enquiry. > [...] and shoot down the link between "IP rights" and > "technological means of enforcement": [...] Yes, those two things aren't directly linked and showing why not may help to build a broader front against DRM protectionism. -- MJ Ray - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ irc.oftc.net/slef Jabber/SIP ask _______________________________________________ Fsfe-uk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
