Stallman leads the GPL off a cliff (ZDNet)

Posted Jan 30, 2006 5:40 UTC (Mon) by pjm (subscriber, #2080) [Link]

The argument that Hollywood etc. will offer is that without DRM, not enough people will pay the original studio/creators, making it less economically viable to create good films/music/software. They will point at the number of songs that people download without the copyright owners' permission/license, and will imply that every one of those downloads corresponds to a lost sale. They will point at the huge production costs of some films, and assume that these “costs” are independent of available film revenue: e.g. assuming that big-name actors really do “cost” $1M, independent of market.

Evidently movie-goers do want special effects; it might then be argued that consumers want DRM in the same sense that citizens want taxes: i.e. they want everyone to pay taxes / pay creators, so that we get high-quality schools / creative works.

I suggest that we not discuss the merits of DRM here in reader comments, but rather read and then consider modifying http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Rights_Management, where the arguments are more likely to be read by people who can influence the use of DRM.