| |||||||||||
The Linux kernel and digital rights managementThe Linux kernel and digital rights managementPosted May 1, 2003 4:00 UTC (Thu) by miallen (guest, #10195)Parent article: The Linux kernel and digital rights management I don't get it. What's the problem here? This is no different from the XBox PKI usage. Can you fault MS for restricting what can boot on their hardware? Not that I'm a big fan of MS but if you want to get philosphical about it I think you'll lose. The only problem I can see with DRM in general is censorship. But that requires a monopoly on the forum which isn't easy to come by. I don't think even MS can pull that off. There are plenty of ways to watch video and listen to audio using something other than MS products and I think they're in for a hard sell if they try to lock down WMP. If I'm wrong, by all means educate me... Mike
(Log in to post comments)
The Linux kernel and digital rights management Posted May 1, 2003 4:41 UTC (Thu) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link] I can't fault MS for restricting what boots on "their" hardware - that is, the hardware inside their offices, owned by Microsoft. But if I buy a computer, I want to be able to do whatever I want with that computer. If everything has insane PKI limitations, we have a state where only the extremely wealthy or corporations can own anything; everyone else is just licensing - software, hardware, or otherwise.
The Linux kernel and digital rights management Posted May 1, 2003 7:05 UTC (Thu) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link] Until you buy the hardware, it belongs to Microsoft, and they should be allowed to cripple it however they want to. After you should be able to take it apart and do whatever you want with it.The real problem is the laws which say you can't take apart hardware you own.
The Linux kernel and digital rights management Posted May 1, 2003 13:08 UTC (Thu) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link] I think the way the laws are being interpreted, you do not own the hardware. The best it can be said is that you have a long term lease on it, but you do not OWN it. Sad.
The Linux kernel and digital rights management Posted May 2, 2003 4:04 UTC (Fri) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link] I see it a little bit differently. The way the laws are being interpreted, there are certain things you are not allowed to think about or discuss.And hey, that's perfectly reasonable if you live in communist Russia.
So you don't own it? So what? Posted May 3, 2003 2:30 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] Why is that sad? Isn't this just a wording issue? If we didn't say that customer "owns the xbox" or "bought the xbox," doesn't your whole argument just evaporate? If we keep everything the same except the words and say you purchased the right to do certain things involving a certain hunk of xbox hardware, then is there an issue? If we say MS owns the xbox, like my bank says it owns the credit card in my wallet, does that solve the problem?Or are you just concerned that someone unwittingly bought these limited rights to use an xbox when he thought he was buying the xbox in the simple sense? We can fix that with publicity.
The Linux kernel and digital rights management Posted May 2, 2003 20:53 UTC (Fri) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link] If you've been following the technical press, though, on topics like the trend of hardware manufacturers towards things like hard drives with encrypted *interfaces* (for which {you don't have,only Micro$oft has} the keys, then the idea won't surprise you that Microsoft will be able to swing *the entire industry* towards crap like this...
The Linux kernel and digital rights management Posted May 1, 2003 11:00 UTC (Thu) by bockman (subscriber, #3650) [Link] One potential DRM problem for Linux users is to make the market even less friendly to us. Nowadays it is already difficult buy a PC for installing Linux on it. In many places you are forced to buy one with a pre-installed Microsoft OS - paying for something that you don't use. Moreover, it is likely that the PC includes some windows-only hardware that you are forced to buy anyway.If future PCs will only boot DRM-enabled kernels, installing Linux will only be possible by people capable to build their own PC, including burning a DRM-free BIOS chip with something downloaded from the Net. And good-bye to the already extremely small Linux 'market'. Not mentioning that building DRM-free PC could become illegal in countries with DMCA-like legislation. And if you wonder why a linux user should care about running a DRM-enabled kernel (after all, it is only there to prevent piracy, is'n it?), consider that it would make not possible to do a lot of things that we currently do (and which are perfectly legal), like recompiling the kernel to fit it to your machine, or downloading, compiling and trying out a new software package not yet in your 'signed' distribution.
The Linux kernel and digital rights management Posted May 2, 2003 13:52 UTC (Fri) by ptr (guest, #5885) [Link] I think that the real problem is that Microsoft is in the position of holding several quasi-monopolies (Windows, Office). Thus it looks quite outrageous to me, if they sell subventioned hardware which restricts the customer to choices they decide upon.I agree that it would be a valid business model in general. The questions is whether you accept the spirit of anti-trust laws or not.
|
|||||||||||