[cc-licenses] Against DRM 1.0
rob at robmyers.org
Fri Apr 14 17:39:05 EDT 2006
On 14 Apr 2006, at 19:15, Greg London wrote:
> However, given that, it seems that the "no DRM at all"
> variations are attempting to make a strategic move
> in game theory sense. By prohibiting any DRM, it would
> seem they are trying to force folks who use DRM to
> suffer some consequences and drop it or have non-DRM
> options available.
They are a response to the strategic move by DRM advocates. We
already suffer consequences from using DRM (DRM is a significant cost
for artists and consumers), anti-DRM clauses are designed to remove
those consequences (although obviously they do have their own side-
> It's unlikely that we'll see DRM go away without
> congress enforcing it or the supreme court ruling
> it to be illegal.
Certainly the market will not be allowed to decide whether consumers
want DRM or not if the DRM vendors have their way.
> However, it *might* be possible that were
> "no DRM at all" works to get popular enough,
> that DRM platforms *might* consider building
> in a Non-DRM option.
This is why it is important for "Open Content" to not capitulate to
DRM at this moment. Even to stupid attempts at feelgood DRM like Sun's:
> i.e. PDA bookreaders and
> playstations and the like might be built such
> that content *can* be transferred without DRM.
The problem is that if readers and playstations can ignore DRM they
are just piracy machines and can be used to kill puppies. Or something.
More information about the cc-licenses