On 21/11/2007, Michael Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 21 November 2007 00:16:13 Dave Crossland wrote: > > Promoting proprietary software and inflicting DRM on > > people is unethical.
<<<----SNIP---->>> > You want a publically funded body consisting of unelected employees > telling the public what's *ethical* ? I'm personally uneasy with where > that route leads... Other opinions are available. > > The BBC is currently required by the rights holders to use DRM. Banging on > about your own personal ethics is all well and good, but the BBC aren't the > ones making the rules about content here. Unless you want the BBC > performing criminal acts, or not doing something the audience appears > to want. This is not an argument about ethics, however ethical issues are involved. As has been discussed *much* on this mailing list and in other places, interoperability, is set in open standards, which in this case would *have* to be to be implemented in open source software (Free Software from *my* perspective). The roots of Free Software are set in the user having control over what goes on, on his computer, which also brings a collision course with DRM. Reasons to oppose proprietary software and DRM are rooted in ethics, but have a much wider scope than what you make out. Please consider researching this. -- www.dobo.urandom.co.uk ---- If each of us have one object, and we exchange them, then each of us still has one object. If each of us have one idea, and we exchange them, then each of us now has two ideas. - George Bernard Shaw - 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/
