Comments on: OJ Simpson Open Source http://techliberation.com/2006/04/15/oj-simpson-open-source/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Fri, 25 May 2012 13:24:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: short url http://techliberation.com/2006/04/15/oj-simpson-open-source/comment-page-1/#comment-33120 short url Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:21:39 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/04/15/oj-simpson-open-source/#comment-33120 <p>0a7e4c84e24a Nice site <a href="http:/0zu.tw/" rel="nofollow">short url</a> short url</p> 0a7e4c84e24a Nice site short url short url

]]> By: short url http://techliberation.com/2006/04/15/oj-simpson-open-source/comment-page-1/#comment-45359 short url Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:21:39 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/04/15/oj-simpson-open-source/#comment-45359 <p>0a7e4c84e24a Nice site <a href="http:/0zu.tw/" rel="nofollow">short url</a> short url</p> 0a7e4c84e24a Nice site short url short url

]]> By: Matt Cline http://techliberation.com/2006/04/15/oj-simpson-open-source/comment-page-1/#comment-45358 Matt Cline Mon, 17 Apr 2006 14:38:28 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/04/15/oj-simpson-open-source/#comment-45358 <blockquote><br>Surely that's better than a market where only a few, rich corporations have total control over the DRM.<br></blockquote> <p><br><br>You think Sun is poor?</p>
Surely that’s better than a market where only a few, rich corporations have total control over the DRM.



You think Sun is poor?

]]> By: Matt Cline http://techliberation.com/2006/04/15/oj-simpson-open-source/comment-page-1/#comment-33119 Matt Cline Mon, 17 Apr 2006 13:38:28 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/04/15/oj-simpson-open-source/#comment-33119 <blockquote> Surely that's better than a market where only a few, rich corporations have total control over the DRM. </blockquote> <p>You think Sun is poor?</p> Surely that’s better than a market where only a few, rich corporations have total control over the DRM.

You think Sun is poor?

]]> By: Tim http://techliberation.com/2006/04/15/oj-simpson-open-source/comment-page-1/#comment-45357 Tim Mon, 17 Apr 2006 01:41:11 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/04/15/oj-simpson-open-source/#comment-45357 <p>Well, obviously on the margin, a less-restrictive and more-interoperable DRM scheme is preferable, if it ever makes it to market. However, I'm not convinced this will ever reach the marketplace, at least in the form they're describing it now. I predict that when Sun's engineers try to translate Schwartz's soaring rhetoric into code, they'll discover (if they don't know already) that you can't build an "open" system with the consumer restrictions demanded by Hollywood. They'll be forced to choose between openness and the approval of Hollywood. Guess which one they'll give up first?<br><br>So I don't see any reason to think that DReaM will be any more "open" than Microsoft's Windows Media-base DRM is now. Microsoft licenses its DRM scheme to third parties too, and generally speaking Windows-Media-based media devices all interoperate. It's not clear to me what makes Sun's system any different except maybe the licensing fee will be smaller.</p> Well, obviously on the margin, a less-restrictive and more-interoperable DRM scheme is preferable, if it ever makes it to market. However, I’m not convinced this will ever reach the marketplace, at least in the form they’re describing it now. I predict that when Sun’s engineers try to translate Schwartz’s soaring rhetoric into code, they’ll discover (if they don’t know already) that you can’t build an “open” system with the consumer restrictions demanded by Hollywood. They’ll be forced to choose between openness and the approval of Hollywood. Guess which one they’ll give up first?

So I don’t see any reason to think that DReaM will be any more “open” than Microsoft’s Windows Media-base DRM is now. Microsoft licenses its DRM scheme to third parties too, and generally speaking Windows-Media-based media devices all interoperate. It’s not clear to me what makes Sun’s system any different except maybe the licensing fee will be smaller.

]]> By: MikeT http://techliberation.com/2006/04/15/oj-simpson-open-source/comment-page-1/#comment-45356 MikeT Mon, 17 Apr 2006 01:12:26 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/04/15/oj-simpson-open-source/#comment-45356 <p>Regardless, the introduction of DReaM is a good thing for content buyers. It's good to see at least a partially open source product being made availible for consideration. Surely that's better than a market where only a few, rich corporations have total control over the DRM.</p> Regardless, the introduction of DReaM is a good thing for content buyers. It’s good to see at least a partially open source product being made availible for consideration. Surely that’s better than a market where only a few, rich corporations have total control over the DRM.

]]> By: Tim http://techliberation.com/2006/04/15/oj-simpson-open-source/comment-page-1/#comment-33118 Tim Mon, 17 Apr 2006 00:41:11 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/04/15/oj-simpson-open-source/#comment-33118 <p>Well, obviously on the margin, a less-restrictive and more-interoperable DRM scheme is preferable, if it ever makes it to market. However, I'm not convinced this will ever reach the marketplace, at least in the form they're describing it now. I predict that when Sun's engineers try to translate Schwartz's soaring rhetoric into code, they'll discover (if they don't know already) that you can't build an "open" system with the consumer restrictions demanded by Hollywood. They'll be forced to choose between openness and the approval of Hollywood. Guess which one they'll give up first?</p> <p>So I don't see any reason to think that DReaM will be any more "open" than Microsoft's Windows Media-base DRM is now. Microsoft licenses its DRM scheme to third parties too, and generally speaking Windows-Media-based media devices all interoperate. It's not clear to me what makes Sun's system any different except maybe the licensing fee will be smaller.</p> Well, obviously on the margin, a less-restrictive and more-interoperable DRM scheme is preferable, if it ever makes it to market. However, I’m not convinced this will ever reach the marketplace, at least in the form they’re describing it now. I predict that when Sun’s engineers try to translate Schwartz’s soaring rhetoric into code, they’ll discover (if they don’t know already) that you can’t build an “open” system with the consumer restrictions demanded by Hollywood. They’ll be forced to choose between openness and the approval of Hollywood. Guess which one they’ll give up first?

So I don’t see any reason to think that DReaM will be any more “open” than Microsoft’s Windows Media-base DRM is now. Microsoft licenses its DRM scheme to third parties too, and generally speaking Windows-Media-based media devices all interoperate. It’s not clear to me what makes Sun’s system any different except maybe the licensing fee will be smaller.

]]> By: MikeT http://techliberation.com/2006/04/15/oj-simpson-open-source/comment-page-1/#comment-33117 MikeT Mon, 17 Apr 2006 00:12:26 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/04/15/oj-simpson-open-source/#comment-33117 <p>Regardless, the introduction of DReaM is a good thing for content buyers. It's good to see at least a partially open source product being made availible for consideration. Surely that's better than a market where only a few, rich corporations have total control over the DRM.</p> Regardless, the introduction of DReaM is a good thing for content buyers. It’s good to see at least a partially open source product being made availible for consideration. Surely that’s better than a market where only a few, rich corporations have total control over the DRM.

]]>