Hey John, Your email was very positive and I liked the tone, but...
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 11:06 -0600, John Vilsack wrote: > DRM as a concept is not inherently bad. Its simply poor > implementations we've seen up to this point and how its been co-opted > by media conglomerates that force us as a community to paint it in a > negative light. Someday, someone may actually get it right. DRM right now is a system when you give the user the media they paid for and a key to decrypt the media as well as a whole bunch of technical limitations which _require_ the user to be striped of their freedoms in order for it to make any sense at all. Instead of DRM I would recommend Digital Recipient Receipts, a plain text file with hashes to the non-encrypted media cross signed with the distributor, studio and customer. It can detail the price, date of purchase and license. Including if the license grants extras (such as creative commons or gpl). Now it can recommend to software that it do certain things, like play adverts on a dvd. But if the customers thing this is an unfair request on behalf of the studio/distributors then the software ignores it because the software is not obliged legally. Of course then the software makers, users and media can hash out exactly what is fair. what you need is a balance between rights and proof of purchase to be nailed down. Not the hand cuffing of users by media studios and distributors. MArtin, -- ubuntu-marketing mailing list ubuntu-marketing@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-marketing
