From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261165AbTD3Ohw (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Apr 2003 10:37:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261851AbTD3Ohw (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Apr 2003 10:37:52 -0400 Received: from 34.mufa.noln.chcgil24.dsl.att.net ([12.100.181.34]:64250 "EHLO tabby.cats.internal") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261165AbTD3Ohv (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Apr 2003 10:37:51 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Jesse Pollard To: Larry McVoy , "Downing, Thomas" Subject: Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 09:49:48 -0500 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] Cc: Larry McVoy , Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <170EBA504C3AD511A3FE00508BB89A9202032858@exnanycmbx4.ipc.com> <20030430135919.GB32300@work.bitmover.com> In-Reply-To: <20030430135919.GB32300@work.bitmover.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <03043009494800.24403@tabby> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 30 April 2003 08:59, Larry McVoy wrote: [snip] > Your post shows that you think that the reaction is bad and you even say > that the reaction is likely. You vigourously disagree with my conclusions > as to why the reaction is happening, I see that. OK, so let's try it > with a question rather than a statement: why are things like the DMCA and > DRM happening? It isn't the open source guys pushing those, obviously, > it's the corporations. So why are they doing it? To force people to buy their media of course. The data (most of it) is nearly zero cost (between 1 to around 8%). They can't stop you from copying the data. They just want to make that copy unusable. That forces you to buy their media. > Your answer has to be interesting because it seems to me that they are > doing it to protect their products, their product is sometimes content, > sometimes programs, sometimes both. An answer which says that open source > is not part of the cause also says that open source is irrelevant. > > You can't be both a force and not a force. Philosophically, you can, provided that the direction of the forces are perpendicular.