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. Rui
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnuemail@example.com http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss