Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Censorship

Journal Xerithane's Journal: Read it here first! 16

Journal by Xerithane

The DMCA makes thinking a crime! This guy is going to replace dh003i as my new favorite idiot on the block. DRM is an evil entity that destroys libraries and eats children. The DMCA makes it illegal to rot-13 data on your own computer.

Keep this in mind. If we use DRM, the terrorists have already won!

I was actually going to craft a nice response to him, then after reading through his comment I realized he had embarassed himself enough without my help furthering the damage.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Read it here first! More

Read it here first!

Comments Filter:

  • ... but I'm afraid I'd be breaking the DMCA.

  • DRM is the MOST DANGEROUS initiative yet! It will re-write your hard drive. Not only that, but it will scramble any disks that are even close to your computer.
    It will recalibrate your refrigerator's coolness setting so all your ice cream melts and milk curdles. It will demagnetize the strips on all your credit cards, reprogram your ATM access code, screw up the tracking on your VCR and use subspace field harmonics to scratch any CDs you try to play.
    It will give your ex-boy/girlfriend your new phone numbe

  • Frankly, your final reply to him in that thread was quite juvenile.

    Now, you're both arguing the point from different approaches but agree on the basics.
    1) DRM is a tool. To him that means that Linus can't really forbid DRM technology in Linux. To you that means that like all tools it is how it is used.
    2) The DMCA is controversial. To him the worst case scenario is thought crimes (probably a huge exageration but we've seen some idiotic things done in the name of the DMCA). To you the DMCA is mostly mis
    • Now, you're both arguing the point from different approaches but agree on the basics.

      He doesn't agree DRM is a tool. He agrees with Linus, but if you go up on the thread he is saying that DRM is a horribly evil thing with no valid uses, and the only reason why Linus is incorporating it is because he can't figure out how not to... which just isn't true.

      1) DRM is a tool. To him that means that Linus can't really forbid DRM technology in Linux. To you that means that like all tools it is how it is used.
      • Linus didn't exactly give DRM a "ringing endorsement":
        And like the software patent issue, I also don't necessarily like DRM myself, but I still ended up feeling the same: I'm an "Oppenheimer", and I refuse to play politics with Linux, and I think you can use Linux for whatever you want to - which very much includes things I don't necessarily personally approve of. (emphasis added)

        So, both of you agreed on Linus' stance. The other one was just going on to list "all things evil done in the name of DRM and
        • DRM protected works cannot be loaned out from a library unless you lock them to a player and loan that player out as well. A DRM protected player could keep you from finishing your music report because you couldn't extract sample fugues from current works.

          This is just fundamentally wrong. DRM stands for Digital Rights Management. It enables content providors to have rights to be allowed or disallowed. If you have a Library authorized electronic copy, than you could have it destroy it self after a timeo
          • The main problem is that the concept of DRM is that it RESTRICTS rights that currently exist. It doesn't ADD anything for the consumer.

            The library DRM example. Your example doesn't work. It would only work if you had an approved player that "phoned home" to the library every time that you attempted to view the content. (And we do mean EVERY time.) Otherwise you'd have to create a custom copy each time you hand it out with an encoded expiration date.

            Now here's the fundamental problem with DRM:
            DRM mea
            • The main problem is that the concept of DRM is that it RESTRICTS rights that currently exist. It doesn't ADD anything for the consumer.

              Define rights. You do not have a right to take someones copyrighted material and distribute it over the internet. Hell, you don't have a right to do anything with copyrighted material that the copyright holders (and Federal Law) doesn't allow. You can mix it for your home movies, to show your friends. With DRM, you can still (mostly, depending upon the people) do this
              • Hell, you don't have a right to do anything with copyrighted material that the copyright holders (and Federal Law) doesn't allow.

                This seems to be a basic misunderstanding. Copyright is a contract between the government and a content creator. The idea is that the creator gains certain rights over his work granted by the government and expressed by copyright.

                In exchange for those rights the creator gets certain limitations on what he can and cannot do with that copyright. For instance, copyright does NO
                • This seems to be a basic misunderstanding. Copyright is a contract between the government and a content creator. The idea is that the creator gains certain rights over his work granted by the government and expressed by copyright.
                  Exactly. The government says, "These are ways we protect your content." The government doesn't say, "These are ways consumers of yours can screw you."

                  In exchange for those rights the creator gets certain limitations on what he can and cannot do with that copyright. For instan
                  • I'll point out that now you're mixing copyright with licensing and that makes things infinitely confusing.

                    As to your gun comment I can only add this:
                    Gun control means hitting what you aimed at. :-D
                    • I'll point out that now you're mixing copyright with licensing and that makes things infinitely confusing.
                      I was mixing it from the beginning. I'm talking about content licensing, also with what is provided by the US Government under Copyright law. DRM directly relates to licensing.

                      Gun control means hitting what you aimed at. :-D

                      I also like the, "Gun control means using two hands."

                      You can see my new toy, here [nerdfarm.org]. And no, I don't normally dress like that. Movie costume :)
  • The DMCA does technically make some mental operations illegal. For instance, if you were to, in your head, solve the CSS algorithm, then decrypt a Disney DVD and play it back to yourself in your brain, then you would have broken the law.

    You would also be a drooling, autistic motherfucker.

    The thing is that even though the DMCA outlaws though, this aspect of the law is unenforcable and therefore completely irrelevant. Thoughts cannot be submitted as evidence because we do not (yet) have the technology requi
    • The DMCA does technically make some mental operations illegal. For instance, if you were to, in your head, solve the CSS algorithm, then decrypt a Disney DVD and play it back to yourself in your brain, then you would have broken the law.
      Not really. The DMCA allows a person, for the purpose of education, to do whatever they damn well feel like. Only in trafficking the information does it become illegal. Also, reverse engineering a player is covered in an exception claus. Only performing operations that

Slashdot Top Deals

grep me no patterns and I'll tell you no lines.

Close