On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 13:59 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > This are not good reasons. "Hack resistance, safety critical stuff
> > and etc" do not equate with DRM. In fact, DRM harms this features
> > since by design someone else controls the key. In the case of
> > computers there's a master DRM certificate root. The user is never
> > in full control of _his_ computer.
> >
> > DRM is theft.
> Uh, only when afflicted without your agreement.  Other than that, it
> is merely crippling the quality of available choices.


> DRM is just putting into practice for software what has been the rule
> for hardware: built-in self-destruction.

Since Digital Restrictions Management doesn't affect only generic
computers but also the access to works (which can be revoked), I
disagree and maintain my generic view that DRM is theft.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to