Re: GPL & Anti-DRM Clause

[Barry Margolin]

In article <mailman.158.1139593236.2885.gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org>,
 Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <rms@1407.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 10:21 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> > Rui writes:
> > > Since Digital Restrictions Management doesn't affect only generic
> > > computers but also the access to works (which can be revoked), I disagree
> > > and maintain my generic view that DRM is theft.
> > 
> > DRM backed up by law is abusive, but DRM alone is a private matter.
> 
> The law only protect circunvention. But suppose circunvention wasn't
> technically feasible...
> 
> Regardless of law, DRM is theft. If there sould be a law, it should
> forbid DRM.

DRM without laws against circumvention is just ordinary free market 
commerce.  Just because the law allows you to make copies doesn't mean 
that the publisher has to make it *easy* for you to do so.  Without the 
law behind it, it's like physical publishing on copier-resistant paper.

Some publishers may find it more advantageous to implement copy 
prevention, others may charge a bit more but allow copying.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***