Please. Only conspiracy theories allowed here. Move along:)
"However, don't get me wrong - it would be nice if there were more flexibility regarding the portability of protected content, but instead of many very smart people expending huge amounts of effort demonising DRM, maybe it would be better spent constructively, on finding a solution that will help protect investments and be "Free" software friendly?" Sounds good in all seriousness, would be interested to take part in *that* discussion. Alia Chris Warren wrote:
Time for me to unlurk :-) I'm pretty sure everyone knows by now that no-matter what DRM system is in place, it can be circumvented. But in the end that doesn't really matter - it's all just a case of being seen to be doing one's best to protect investments. Someone isn't going to finance content for you if you can't promise you'll do your utmost, through agreements with 3rd parties (e.g. broadcasters) and all the technical and legal measures available to you, to protect their investment, however futile that may be. That isn't crazy - if you were investing in a risky venture, you'd still want promises that those you were investing in would try to minimise risks. However, don't get me wrong - it would be nice if there were more flexibility regarding the portability of protected content, but instead of many very smart people expending huge amounts of effort demonising DRM, maybe it would be better spent constructively, on finding a solution that will help protect investments and be "Free" software friendly? Chris - 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/
- 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/
