Au contraire. Information, by it's nature, MUST be contained, or it is
not information.
Information is data that is organized into a meaningful structure. This
organization cannot be done unless a containing medium (including
thought) is involved. Similarly, information cannot be transmitted,
except through a medium (including sound).
You might, however, claim that the display of information immediately
exposes it to duplication -- but does that mean it _ought_ to be
duplicated, or that it is morally right to do so?
Just because Mozart could transcribe a symphony after hearing it doesn't
mean he did it, then went on to perfrom the work without the author's
permission.
What feels contrary to me is the idea that you could create anything and
it wouldn't belong to you and, therefore, you wouldn't have the right to
control your work. Creative ownership is the most natural of ideas, and
rightfully so! Without creative ownership and the laws, like copyright,
that protect it, there would be nothing preventing one entity from
stealing another entity's creation and using it against the creator's
wishes.
Perhaps I can illustrate with an example -- just theoretical, of course.
Let's say a programmer, we'll call him Leenoos Tervulds, created an
operating system kernel. He might use the perfectly natural idea of
creative ownership, protecteded by strong copyright law, to require
others to use his work under terms of his choosing. Without the law to
protect him, another entity, let's call the Mykrowshoft, could simply
take the kernel and use it for whatever purposes it wanted, without
compensating poor Leenoos in money, code, status or consideration.
For some reason, a lot of people can clearly understand that depriving a
person of the benefits of his or her property is evil, but don't see the
correlation to depriving a person of the benefits of his or her
time/effort. For the entire histroy of man we've understood that it's
wrong to take what does not belong to you, but now that very basic of
beliefs is under attack -- by suggesting that it's wrong for you to
control what you create. (Ah yes, the adversary is very clever indeed.)
>>> Jason Holt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01/23/04 11:27 AM >>>
Information, by its nature, can't be contained unless the people who
know it
do so willfully. Mozart, it's said, could transcribe a symphony at home
after
hearing it once in concert.
So, while there are a few features that are kind of nifty that can come
from
DRM, the whole project feels contrary to nature. It's also a huge
temptation
to people who seek profit from scarcity and are willing to create it in
order
to make more profit.
-J
____________________
BYU Unix Users Group
http://uug.byu.edu/
___________________________________________________________________
List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
____________________
BYU Unix Users Group
http://uug.byu.edu/
___________________________________________________________________
List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
