On 18/10/2006, at 11:41 AM, Mike Liebhold wrote:
Maybe this is the solution the GeoDRM dillema; exactly what Rich
Gibson has been proposing: visual rights are attached to physical
rights. If you don't own a place; you need permission to render it.
Wrong way around... Publishing rights are attached to physical
rights. You can publish authorative information in the virtual space
that matches your physical space. That policy can be policed, whereas
it would be impossible to validate the legality of streams of data.
The GeoDRM dilemma is two-fold:
Using the overloaded term "DRM" for more innocent purposes is
painting a big fat target between the eyes. Wabbit season!
There are other ways of getting the customer to understand the
licensing. Like embedding the license in the protocol.
Regarding the vigorous exchange of opinions in here... Semantic
debates don't change much. Reality follows function, and what happens
depends on what's possible. Consider surveillance. No matter how much
debate there is against, it is easy enough to do that it simply
cannot be prevented.
The real reason that there's even a debate at all is because current
systems are formed around the concept of isolated chunks of data with
different business models. The environment has changed, but there are
still expenses to be recouped.
New ventures will take the Internet and a network model into account,
but people and organisations who have money now and have invested in
the old ventures, are going to claw out every dollar they can by all
legal (and illegal) means first.
The analog hole can't be plugged, and humans are analog. Law and
society will adapt to the new reality.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Geowanking mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
