Oh right. Customers. As opposed to acting like their customers are criminals out to rip them off any chance they get. Fancy that.

Oh right. Customers. As opposed to acting like their customers are criminals out to rip them off any chance they get. Fancy that.

-Re Linux products, obscure and otherwise.
If open source is inherently incompatible with DRM, well, there are going to be limits to the directions in which it will develop, DRM being but one application of some important security techniques. I don’t believe it is, however, or there wouldn’t be *any* licensed Linux players.

The larger point is THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that anyone involved in CSS licensing is suppressing Linux players or neglecting them.

And the really larger point: the fundamental reason that the Linux players need to refer to DeCSS or otherwise illegally decrypted content OR license CSS is that no one is funding the production of unprotected content on a large scale. Anyone is free to do so, but they aren’t.
That is the root of the problem. If you have a business model that relies on someone else’s content, but can’t or won’t support payment mechanisms, how fair is it to complain you’re being shut out of the market?

-Repeat myself again. If the DRM/DMCA is short-changing customers to shore up failing business models…

WHY are there no investors flocking to develop high-quality content that is not protected by DRM? IF there is another way, this is a HUGE opportunity for someone to make a lot of money. WHERE are the new business models? Grokster is just a distribution technology, it doesn’t PRODUCE content.

How is one supposed to tie music or movies to services if anyone with a digital editor can untie them and post the untied content!!!!!

-Re Linux products, obscure and otherwise.
If open source is inherently incompatible with DRM, well, there are going to be limits to the directions in which it will develop, DRM being but one application of some important security techniques. I don’t believe it is, however, or there wouldn’t be *any* licensed Linux players.

The larger point is THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that anyone involved in CSS licensing is suppressing Linux players or neglecting them.

And the really larger point: the fundamental reason that the Linux players need to refer to DeCSS or otherwise illegally decrypted content OR license CSS is that no one is funding the production of unprotected content on a large scale. Anyone is free to do so, but they aren’t.
That is the root of the problem. If you have a business model that relies on someone else’s content, but can’t or won’t support payment mechanisms, how fair is it to complain you’re being shut out of the market?

-Repeat myself again. If the DRM/DMCA is short-changing customers to shore up failing business models…

WHY are there no investors flocking to develop high-quality content that is not protected by DRM? IF there is another way, this is a HUGE opportunity for someone to make a lot of money. WHERE are the new business models? Grokster is just a distribution technology, it doesn’t PRODUCE content.

How is one supposed to tie music or movies to services if anyone with a digital editor can untie them and post the untied content!!!!!

I really liked this quote from Singleton: “The idea that there are two classes of content consumer, the determined pirate and the honest consumer, and nothing in between, is nonsense. There are in my experience precious few in the latter category, especially in certain age groups.”

How about acknowledging the fact that most people don’t like being considered a criminal first? Treat your customers like criminals out to rip you off, and you’ll have criminals as customers.

I would though liike to comment further one one issue: Solveig states: “CSS is a standard like any other…”

Well no, it is not a standard. It is a legally sanctioned monopoly, exactly the opposite of a standard.

Note that many standards are open, for example .html. Usable, and one of the engines of growth of the internet.

I really liked this quote from Singleton: “The idea that there are two classes of content consumer, the determined pirate and the honest consumer, and nothing in between, is nonsense. There are in my experience precious few in the latter category, especially in certain age groups.”

How about acknowledging the fact that most people don’t like being considered a criminal first? Treat your customers like criminals out to rip you off, and you’ll have criminals as customers.

I would though liike to comment further one one issue: Solveig states: “CSS is a standard like any other…”

Well no, it is not a standard. It is a legally sanctioned monopoly, exactly the opposite of a standard.

Note that many standards are open, for example .html. Usable, and one of the engines of growth of the internet.

Actually, there is another problem–MPEG-2 requires a royalty fee, $2.50 for each software installation. As far as I know, there is no open source-ware exception.

Note that neither of these DRM features have anything to do with piracy, yet they are still protected by the DMCA, wholly at the legitimate consumer’s expense.

Actually, there is another problem–MPEG-2 requires a royalty fee, $2.50 for each software installation. As far as I know, there is no open source-ware exception.

Note that neither of these DRM features have anything to do with piracy, yet they are still protected by the DMCA, wholly at the legitimate consumer’s expense.