| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
In what worldIn what worldPosted Jan 27, 2006 17:47 UTC (Fri) by Ross (subscriber, #4065)Parent article: Stallman leads the GPL off a cliff (ZDNet)
... do most users want DRM?
That statement is not compatible with reality as I know it.
(Log in to post comments)
In what world Posted Jan 27, 2006 19:00 UTC (Fri) by jreiser (subscriber, #11027) [Link] In what world do most users want DRM?In a world in which most users are also software creators and wouldn't mind some profit from that activity. Such a world will be awash in software, of course, and the trick will be monetizing the value of your creation(s) [money is fungible, software is not] given the likelyhood that only a few hundred people in the world will care about any particular one of them. That world will be similar in spirit to the present cable television in the US, where there are more than 600 channels, only a few of which have an audience of more than a few hundred thousand viewers. That world is also much the same as the world seen by today's authors of books. The most common press run is only a few thousand copies, and the vast majority of titles never have a second printing.
In what world Posted Jan 27, 2006 19:39 UTC (Fri) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] There seem to be a few problems with your argument.First, most software developers are employed to write custom applications that are never used outside a single company, so enforcement of copyright law (and beyond) is irrelevant to their personal income. Second, companies have made money selling software for many years now without widespread DRM. Third, one doesn't get the impression that many developers support DRM; the impetus seems to come largely from major media corporations.
and too add... Posted Jan 27, 2006 20:41 UTC (Fri) by gvy (guest, #11981) [Link] ...there's a difference between something materialistic, like books, and something less hefty -- like code. Or, well, TV channels.
In what world Posted Jan 27, 2006 20:42 UTC (Fri) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998) [Link] If only a few hundred people in the world will care about any particular program, you don't need DRM. Such programs sell a few copies at high prices and the users have little motivation to make them available for free. At that cost, you can usually afford to write up a good old fashion contract. The stuff that gets widely pirated is stuff that's widely popular.
In what world Posted Feb 2, 2006 12:15 UTC (Thu) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link] Most software is actually sold in 1 copy.Shelfware is the exception, not the rule in software-development. Most programming work is done for one company, which is then going to use the result, not sell it. Of the ~100 programmers I personally know, atleast 3/4 are paid to, in some way or other, write software. Of all that software, I know only 3 people who have contributed to software that is made primarily to be sold, over the shelf as a finished product. 1 game, and 2 people working on an accounting-package (Rubicon), and even the latter is software of the type where services cost a large multiple of the software-price, and you pay pro-year for using the software rather than per copy.
In what world Posted Jan 27, 2006 21:31 UTC (Fri) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] That statement is not compatible with reality as I know it.The entire article exists in a space outside of reality. Anytime someone boldly declares what "most people" will or will not want 10 years into the future, I know that I'm listening to someone who has either limited life experience, or an inflated view of their own opinion, or both.
Well, *I* want DRM... Posted Jan 28, 2006 8:58 UTC (Sat) by leonbrooks (guest, #1494) [Link] ...to finally FOAD.I'd rather see my income trashed and have to start doing something else from cold for a living than to handicap the world's IT infrastructure as badly as the DRM fanboiz evidently want to.
|
|
||||||||||||