[OT] Re: How do you.....
On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 00:09:38 -0400, jbrown105 at speedymail.org wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 11:04:52AM +0200, =
Christian.CUVIER at agriculture.gouv.fr wrote:
><snip>
>> What if this was just a propaganda ploy to panic a lot of people into=
=20
>> buying non-DRM software before the iron curtain falls? It is just too=20
I think it's a little more subtle: the kick comes at hardware upgrade.
>> unlikely that M$ and others move to such a gaping break of=20
>> compatibility, given their record of maintaining ascendant compat with=
=20
>> obsolete techniques and products at a high cost.
>> That's why I don't fret too much about the issue. Just use third =
party=20
>> add-ons to protect your privacy. This is gettong harder since 911, but=
=20
>> remains possible.
>>=20
>> CChris
>>=20
>
>Actually, it might be possible for the DRM OS to allow legacy apps to =
run in an
>'insecure' mode....except for those third-party add-ons, naturally. Same
>for internet connections etc.
Well, yes, non-DRM content. This all relies on taking advantage of the
natural disruption of hardware upgrade to disguise a slow, gradual,
and multi-faceted incursion on our, not just civil, but *economic*
liberties. (11. Thou shalt have no other choice but to pay me)
<snip re linux:>
1) commercial users: just how many are going to leap knowing the big
advantage is their employees can still listen to music, watch videos
and play games when they should be working?
1a) oh and the security thing; I guess they shall all leap since bill
got it wrong eight times already, he MUST be right on the ninth try.
2) and domestic users are going to give up mp3/mpeg/divd?
3) and linux users are going to fold and sneak back to m$?
4) and pacific basin h/w m/f are going to pay BG royalty?
Sure, this is a VERY BAD THING people should be aware of but it will
only affect the bottom feeders
>
>Of course, DRM is just the latest of attempts to use patents to =
monopolize
>computers (and the internet) ... Amazon.com has a patent on the =
single-click
>shopping, and sued a competitor book seller which violated this patent.
I don't blame Amazon for that one, I blame the system which allows
such a ludicrous patent to (continue to) exist.
>
>jbrown
Pete
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
