Miscellaneous > Applications

DRM

<< < (5/5)

flap:
One of the problems here is the use of the term "intellectual property". Besides the false comparison with physical property, the term is misleading, as Stallman says, because it lumps together different types of copyright law that don't have much to do with each other, like patents, copyright and trademarks.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty

DRM-enabled applications are a restriction on users' rights by their very definition, in that they make a decision to prevent users from accessing restricted media files. I'm assuming the DRM application uses some kind of proprietary, secret encryption method so the application itself will have to be proprietary. Another infringement on users' rights.

Doctor V:
I don't see how it infringes on anybody's rights, if person X dosn't want DRM, they can just choose not to pick up the software or delete it.  However if person Y is OK with paying a couple bucks to watch a movie online, whats so bad about them using software to handle that?  They pay for it in the video store, or theatre, why not online?

flap:
Well it's still infringing on their rights, regardless of whether or not they're voluntarily submitting to it. And there's nothing wrong with paying for content or software. The problem is the copyright restriction.

So, yes, it's not such a problem if DRM is only in certain applications and not built in to the OS. Like with all proprietary applications, users have the right to choose to use them. The goal should be to convince them why they should choose otherwise.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page