In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 10:21 -0600, John Hasler wrote: > > Rui writes: > > > 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. > > > > DRM backed up by law is abusive, but DRM alone is a private matter. > > The law only protect circunvention. But suppose circunvention wasn't > technically feasible... > > Regardless of law, DRM is theft. If there sould be a law, it should > forbid DRM. DRM without laws against circumvention is just ordinary free market commerce. Just because the law allows you to make copies doesn't mean that the publisher has to make it *easy* for you to do so. Without the law behind it, it's like physical publishing on copier-resistant paper. Some publishers may find it more advantageous to implement copy prevention, others may charge a bit more but allow copying. -- Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group *** _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
