DRM is the topic
Posted Oct 15, 2006 3:05 UTC (Sun) by GreyWizard
In reply to: Public Benefit is the Question
Parent article: Similar in spirit?
Umm, The topic of the thread was technology used to lock down
software so the user/owner can't modify it.
No, the topic is DRM. I should know since it was my comment that
started this thread. I said, "Perhaps there are legitimate uses for
DRM [...]" and did not mention any implementation technology. Your
comment that began this sub-thread is attached to mine, in which I
mention DRM twice and Trusted Computing not at all. Finally, this
thread is attached to an LWN article titled "Similar in spirit?" which
likewise mentions DRM but not Trusted Computing. The controversial
GPLv3 draft terms in question would prohibit DRM but not any
particular technology. There is no reason to be discussing Trusted
Computing in this context.
Your belief that fear of liability is fanciful may make you
comfortable, but the corporate lawyers I know disagree with
Are you referring to fear of liability in general? If so, then you
are off the mark yet again because I made no statement about that.
Here is the text you are responding to: "This claim [that DRM makes a
manufacturer safer by reducing potential liability] is fanciful in the
case of DRM [...]" If not and you intend to demonstrate that fear of
liability caused by leaving out including DRM is reasonable then you
must do better than invoking unnamed lawyers who take your position.
Can you name one? Can you cite a case in which a manufacturer was
found liable for failing to include DRM? Do you even have much weaker
evidence like a manufacturer that explicitly claims in a public
statement to use DRM for reducing liability?
Cell phones are a reasonable example of a place where there is a
public good in making operating software non-modifiable except by
Cell phones are an excellent example of a technology where openness
would benefit the public by unlocking the potential for innovation.
Despite the message you are replying to you still ignore the costs of
preventing modifications. For good measure you overstate the benefits
too: a cell phone is not the only or even the most convenient way to
disrupt cellular networks. Cell phone jamming devices are illegal but
readily available and possibly even a benefit to the public in some
cases. (See http://www.slate.com/id/2092059/ for a thought provoking
discussion of this topic.) A case for the public benefit of DRM needs
less ambiguous examples.
to post comments)