On Fri, 2004-01-23 at 10:19, Gabriel Gunderson wrote: > I'll bite. I think DRM will be the way of the future. The current is > to strong to fight. I also think it will be a good thing, so long as > others don't decide what your RIGHTS are and MANAGE them for you.
Well then we might as well call a spade a spade. DRM does not stand for "Digital Rights Management;" it actually stands for "Digital Restrictions Management." When you admit that this is what it stands for, then even in a situation such as Soren described, it looks ludicrus. I mean until you can install DRM technology in the human brain, then DRM will never actually restrict things that it claims to restrict. Spies will still buy and sell restricted information. At some point, everything boils down to the human element. If you don't or cannot trust your employee (say from LANL's pov), then you have bigger problems than anything that DRM could mitigate. Once dishonesty and distrust become widespread (as is happening already dispite DRM's effort to legislate morality through laws like the DMCA), society as a whole is on the brink of internal destruction. DRM also promotes the idea that people are guilty until proven innocent, and untrustworthy, generally. Clearly DRM comes out of the philosophical thought put forth by Thomas Hobbes, which we as LDS people understand to clearly be wrong and overly pessemistic. On the whole, DRM could have some potential for good, but the main purpose of DRM, and the origin of DRM is not about from government labs such as LANL to protect national secrets, but rather from industries trying to extert more control over their information than copyright law normally allows. The Church, for example, will most likely not be adopting DRM anytime soon for dealing with church records and communications. This may be perhaps due mainly to technology not being available to all church units, but I think it's more do to the fact that the Church wants to focus on the good in individuals and give them opportunities to demonstrate trust and propriety, rather than force it on them. Michael P.S. Let's change the reply-to crap back. I always hit "reply to all" and then remove the people I don't want to email from the CC list. Now I have to remove the names from the "To" list and then copy the CC list up to the To list. It's a royal pain. > > G > > > Now I know this is the whole point of DRM, and I don't know if there's > > another way to do it. I don't think there is; hence, I think that DRM > > in and of itself is a very good and very timely idea. I just don't > > trust MS or any other closed-source system to do the M of my DR's. > > > ____________________ > BYU Unix Users Group > http://uug.byu.edu/ > ___________________________________________________________________ > List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list -- Michael L Torrie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
