Invisible wrote:
> Oh, if there was a profit in it, somebody would have 
> done it, which is why it was illegal.

And that's why public performance is also regulated. :-)

> Hence, we arrive at the fundamental problem: It is trivially easy to 
> copy and distribute digital data. However, some of this digital data is 
> copyrighted work, who's creators (quite reasonably) expect you to pay 
> for it. Others simply reason "why pay if I can get it for free?"

Basically, the music and film industry depends on it being possible to make 
copies but not cheap to make copies.

There was no RIAA before there were records. Copyrights on books were 
senseless before the invention of the printing press. Now that a 
personal-scale printing press costs less than 10 books, and making a copy of 
a recording no longer requires an entire factory, the publishing industry 
has to deal with that.

> But then of course, the publishers think "OK, well if we embed this 
> computer program, we can stop people copying it". (Actually no, no you 
> cannot. But the CEO probably isn't smart enough to comprehend this.) 

Even if he is, the shareholders aren't. It's like the TSA - security theater.

> I have no problem with content creators expecting a return on their 
> investment. But I object to DRM, on a number of grounds. (Point #1 being 
> "it doesn't work".)

The real reason it doesn't work is that you only have to break it once. Once 
someone takes the copy protection off, they can distribute the broken 
version. So the DRM has to keep out the *smartest* attackers, not just the 
average attackers.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message