On 09/02/07, Andrew Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The purpose of being good enough to satisfy the people that
> > own the rights to the content - and therefore being able to
> > release the content in this manner.
> You implicitly elevate the people that own the rights to the content
> above the public. This isn't cool.
No it's not cool. However if you don't have rights holders who are
happy, you would get nowt.
What's better - a moral highground with nothing, or no moral
highground but with everything?
That is a fictitious choice, which misreprents the situation. They
will not offer us "everything". They will offer us some limited
access under nasty conditions, with some small concession for
neutralizing the opposition - and once the opposition's impetus
is gone, they will withdraw it.
As Frederick Douglass said, "Power concedes nothing without
a demand."
Our moral high ground is the basis for our demand for freedom. If we
agree to abandon that, in return for some token concession, that might
be presented as a victory, but in the long term it would be surrender.
I'd presume people here
would say the former, whilst I suspect the majority of the
general public would say the latter.
The majority of the general public don't yet recognize there is a
problem with DRM. We free culturalists do, and we are trying to end
the problem.
--
Regards,
Dave
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
