> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Guylhem Aznar > Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 11:40 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: owner_id_build vs. copyprevention_bit > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 05:53:15PM -0400, David A. Desrosiers wrote: > > It would seem that these two options go together. If you set the > > owner of the document, crypting the string into the header > > of the Plucked document, beaming it to someone else will do you > > (or them) no good, unless their device's UserID string exactly > > matches yours (highly unlikely, unless you're beaming between two > > devices of your own, both with the same UserID set for testing). > > Shouldn't they be removed altogether? Preveting copy is > encouraging DRM. DRM should be flushed down the toilets.
Won't happen. There are too many folks who are trying to make a living on intellectual property, and want _some_ way of insuring they get paid for what they do. > Free software is about sharing knowledge and encouraging copy, IMHO > quite far from restricting or preventing copy. Ask any author who has books in electronic format how they feel about unrestricted distribtion of their copyrighted work without thier permission. Intellectual property is _property_, just as material objects are. Redistribution of copyrighted intellectual property with the express permission of the rights holder is _theft_, pure and simple. > Guylhem P. Aznar ______ Dennis _______________________________________________ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
