On April 5, 2016 7:43:34 AM AST, Fabio Pesari <[email protected]> wrote: >>Hi Julien, > >I am sorry but your post isn't really clear or easy to follow, Sorry about that. I should have clarified, this is the last of an email exchange between him and myself. I left his email unchanged I didn't want to misconvey any of his thoughts.
But he top posted all of that so I fixed it. > >> -FSF was suggesting that a central server that runs a program for you is a >> bad idea. Although their point is good (that it is dangerous to have this), >> it nonetheless has its advantages: >> >> --Multiplayer games could not run without this happening > >That's not always true: many multiplayer games nowadays use what is >called "matchmaking", which is a way to play online without dedicated >servers (the game is hosted by one or more of the players). > >> --Secure databases that must be protected from tampering (ex bank accounts, >> multiplayer games, cloud storage) could not work without this happening > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_database Thankyou excellent point > >Compared to what? A native program consumes _zero_ bandwidth compared >to >its SaaSS counterpart (unless you want it to). > I believe his issue was if you needed to download the program for a one time use vs SaaSS which is convenient (if you are ignorant to freedom and privacy concerns) >This is harder to deal with. Considering how real-life libraries work >(each transaction is logged, there are only a few copies for every >book, >books must be given back), then to me DRM looks like a reasonable >implementation. > >Do I think it's fair? No, it isn't. But rationally, it makes sense, >and >I can't think of many other ways to achieve this without angering the >publishers (who don't want DRM-free PDFs floating around), and since >it's their books it's also their rules. > >DRM is bad for a number of reasons, mainly that it requires users to >blindly trust proprietary code. If said users don't have a problem >with >that (and judging by the percentage of Windows, iOS and Android users, >they don't), there is no reason for them to dislike DRM. > >DRM in hardware is a whole another issue: monitors and CPUs are bad >enough, but think about self-driving cars or medical implants. Those >things can decide who lives and who dies and DRM in them is frankly >dangerous. But again, it's their devices and their rules. What must be >prevented is DRM becoming legally obligatory, which I think could >happen >in some fields (3D printing comes to my mind). Another great point. Thank you again Sorry for the double send
