Re: DRM

[Alfred M\. Szmidt]

   Alfred: the right to share is clear, and has absolutely nothing to
   do with FSF, GNU, or GPL.

Jonathan: I suggest you read more carefully, I never made such claims.

   The argument that I should not be able to set terms for the use of
   my creations is not clear (to me). I do not have time to read
   www.gnu.org in its entirety. Can you narrow this down a bit?

www.gnu.org/philosophy/, all of it is quite fun to read.  You have
time to write long responses, so I assume you have time to read.

   > Nor is this Richard's ideology, the right to share information
   > existed long before him.

   The right to share does not equate to the obligation to share. Nor
   does it equate to an obligation to share on an "all or nothing"
   basis.

Never claimed that it was based on `all or nothing'.  Share with
people you trust, simple as that.  I don't disucss what I feel about a
praticular girl with you since I don't trust you, but I do discuss
that with a person that I do trust.

   >    I do not believe that the DRM technology is evil per se. I
   >    strongly dislike DRM, but I believe that an author should be
   >    able to control the use of their work within the limits and
   >    framework of copyright.
   > 
   > The author can already do that: don't share it to begin with.
   > What he shouldn't be allowed to do is dictate how people who he
   > has shared that information with are supposed to handle it.

   I do not agree. *I* should not be able to dictate what terms *you*
   set for the use of *your* work.

So you argue that you should be able to dictate what kind of nails I
use with your hammer?  Or dictate that I am not allowed to add pepper
to a gingerbread recipe that I got from you?  Don't you think that is
a bit silly?

   >    I strongly dislike DRM. If we can arrive at a set of technical
   >    means that supports privacy and security without supporting
   >    DRM, I would be very comfortable with deploying a system that
   >    could not support DRM.
   > 
   > You cannot achive privacy without trust, don't trust someone,
   > don't share with that person.  Just don't dictate what the person
   > should do with the information you shared.

   The inability to set terms for use of my work within the framework
   of copyright (which is the prevailing societal consensus) is
   precisely the part of the ideology that I do not agree with.

Who is limiting the terms you can set for your work?  You are free to
set whatever terms you please, don't exepct anyone to follow them if
they find them immoral.  A nice example is you telling me this amazing
secret that would solve the problem of world hunger in a single day,
but you dictate that I am not allowed to tell anyone about this.  I'd
probobly tell you to go to hell, and plaster it anywhere I could!

   The FSF ideology, in effect, attempts to dictate terms to me
   concerning what may be done with my work product. I consent to
   these terms only on a case by case basis.

The non-free ideology dictates the terms to me concerning what I can
do something that I have on my drive. Care to explain what this `FSF
ideology' is?  Since I don't know.  Maybe you mean free software, but
I cannot be sure that you do, but if you do, the free software doesn't
dictate anything over you.

   When the free software community makes the leap to ideology,
   however, these cease to be balance points. They become an
   ideologically dictated position that should be applied universally.

Freedom should always be applied universally.  Having users enslaved
by non-free software is simply unacceptable, just as it is
unacceptable to have human slave labour.  Or do you think that some
cases warrent the use of slave labour? (This is essentially what open
source software advocates, that on occasions it is useful to give up
your freedom to see practical benefits)


Note that we are mixing lots of things here, both software and
`ideas'.  It might make things easier if we stuck to one subject.