[dundee] DRM - Making people criminals (either way)

[Iain Barnett]

On 14 Oct 2008, at 12:10 am, Kris Davidson wrote:

> Yeah now they can't buy solid gold pool, they'll have to settle for
> solid silver.
>

I fail to see how an argument that relies on moral superiority means  
it's ok to take what is not given? Linux is freely given, music may  
not be. If it's not, and you take it, then you are stealing. How is  
one person's greed for money worse than another's greed for music?  
They are both a desire for more of a resource and both lead to a  
restricted flow of money towards other people. One is not more  
immoral than the other, they only differ in opportunity (which leads  
to the difference in scope).


As for implying that people are criminals through the application of  
DRM, I suppose you'd give out your email address with your password?  
Surely the use of a password system implies that everyone else wants  
to read your email? Well, no it doesn't but it is based on the  
pragmatic realisation that there probably are people who will read  
your email unless you put in measures to stop them/slow them down.  
Hence, security. Unfortunately, getting your security measure to  
discriminate between trustworthy people and non-trustworthy people is  
quite difficult, hence, non-discriminatory security like passwords  
and DRM. They are protecting their assets just as you protect yours.  
Up to them. If you don't like it, produce some music and give it away  
free or set up a band and play their music in private.

Freedom is a choice and not a dogma to be imposed on others.

Iain