DRM good or evil?

Posted Sep 23, 2006 18:19 UTC (Sat) by mingo (subscriber, #31122)
In reply to: Bad, bad DRM by man_ls
Parent article: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

I dont think i should get into the business of trying to determine what is good, evil or silly - but you did this work for me, so my only job is to point out possible inconsistencies in your categorization:

most human tools have their purpose written upon them in neon letters. Are fingerprint-resistant automatic assault rifles good or evil? They are patently evil.

is it evil even if you found it on the street (honestly, some street gang left it there), and by accident you are attacked by a drunk maniac weilding an axe, who kills your dog with a single blow and now threatens to kill you, your wife and your son? So while i'd agree with you that the production of such a rifle is probably patently evil, actual use might still be considered "good", in special circumstances.

Is the atomic bomb good or evil? They are devised to decimate whole cities; it is hard to see what good they can bring.

Here again the answer is: "it depends". For example, which atomic bomb? The russian atomic bombs were never used against civilians, and they helped create a "balance of total mutual destruction", which resulted in no other atomic bombs being used after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (although they were very much considered militarily) Were thus those, "defensive" atomic bombs "evil" too? Or did they save humanity from total destruction?

another question here: man would have figured out the a-bomb no matter what. If not the Manhatten project then some other effort. If you had the choice, and this discovery was inevitable, which country would you have picked to discover the atomic bomb? Nazi Germany? Communist China under the rule of Mao? The Soviet Union under the rule of Stalin? Or maybe the USA?

Were the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki good or evil? They were utterly evil, and making them "the lesser of two huge evils" is not going to change that.

Did they save 3-4 hundreds of thousands of american lives, at the "expense" of 200,000 japanese lives? By simple, cold-blooded extrapolation from the casualty figures of Osaka's assault, probably yes. Is it evil to pick the lesser of two incredible evils? The answer depends on your fate. The Christian religion will most likely say: "yes, it was incredibly evil, man must not kill, let God decide". Under other religions it could be considered "good".

I think even these scenarios - although you picked them - are alot less clear-cut than you suggest. The same goes for DRM. It's a tool, and its morality depends on intent and other circumstances, not on the tool itself. DRM was not invented today, it was in use for more than a decade in probably every desktop chip that you used - and the use of that type of DRM was considered totally good. (the Intel microcode upload mechanism is DRM.) DRM has also been in use in probably almost every ATM that you used in your life, for over a decade. For a totally valid and non-evil purpose too. I believe you only consider DRM "evil" because you are seeing it used for evil things in things like DVD players. But even there it's not the use of DRM that is evil, but the intent of that use: the content mafia wants to preserve its monopoly.

to post comments

DRM good or evil?

Posted Sep 23, 2006 21:47 UTC (Sat) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (4 responses)

actually, I've seen some reports that Truman authorized the use of the atomic bomb only after receiving a report that showed that dropping the bomb was expected to cost fewer Japanese civilian lives then an invasion of Japan would (again based on the behavior of the japanese at okinawa).

if these reports are correct (and from what I know of Japan during that timeframe I tend to believe them) then the use of the Bombs qualify as definitivly Good, not Evil.

DRM good or evil?

Posted Sep 24, 2006 2:46 UTC (Sun) by ianji (guest, #40710) [Link]

The idea that atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to saves lives is
widely believed but not neccessarily true. I have also seen reports that the terms of the eventual
Japanese surrender were essentially the same terms that they had already conceded to before the
nuclear attacks, and that the US only turned them down earlier because they wanted the world to
see a demonstration of the power they posessed. For further reading check out "The Hiroshima
Myth" by John V. Denson (I haven't read it but I have read a fairly lengthy synopsis).

Arithmetic of death

Posted Sep 24, 2006 6:02 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

Suppose I tell you I've also seen some reports that Stalin only authorized those Gulags after receiving a report that leaving those people alive would only have costed many more lives (based on the behaviour of the Russians at the previous revolution). Does it make the Gulags more palatable? Is Stalin a humanitarian now?

Also, imagine the report was not true. Maybe some guy in the military slipped it to Truman because he wanted to use his new toy. I tend to think that reports made during wartime are not very trusty, but what do I know.

I cannot avoid but think that those arithmetics of death are weak as a justification.

DRM good or evil?

Posted Sep 24, 2006 13:35 UTC (Sun) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (1 responses)

There is a huge political benifit for some people to vilify the American's use of nuclear weapons at the end of WW2. So be sure to know were your getting your information before you jump to conlusions.

---------------------

There are a few concrete things to keep in mind before making up your mind:

Based on historical evidance there is every sign that invading the Japanese homeland would of been horrific in terms of lives and damage to both sides of the war. The only time the U.S. engaged in a land conflict on traditionally Japanese territory (as per my understanding) was during the Battle of Okinawa.

Total casuality counts were 7,373 men killed and 32,056 wounded on the American side on land and another 5,000 killed and 4,600 wounded at sea.
(According to Wikipedia it's 12,500 dead and 32,000 wounded, total British and American )

On the Japanese side they had a estimated 130,000 troops stationed on the island. By the end of the battle they had 107,000 of them killed. With a possible another 20,000 killed, but completely incinerated and unaccounted for by the American's tatics of burning out the Japanese emplacements with flame throwers. (Wikipedia says it's 110,000 dead and 7,455 captured total). Typically soldiers would rush at Americans holding live grenades rather then surrendering.

Okinawa had a civilian population of about 450,000 people. Of that by the end of the battle (according to Wikipedia) they suffered at least 150,000 in terms of 'losses'. Much of it was from people simply killing themselves to avoid the 'American barbarians'.

In comparision with after effects and radiation poisoning taken into account there were about 213,000 people died as a direct result with both atomic bombings.

-----------------------------

From Truman's perspective I think the question was much more simple:

Invade Japan and expect U.S. militiary casualties numbering easily over a hundred thousand even if it turned out to be a short land war. (and easily several times that if Japanese decided to drag it out)
OR
Drop the bomb, end the war now, and loose nothing. No ships. No planes. No americans dead, wounded, or dying.

The correct course of action would of been pretty obvious during that time. I think that is the simpliest and most logical explaination as to realy why he dropped the bomb.. and most likely the correct one.

We were definately going to occupy Japan one way or another. There was no way the Americans were going to accept a conditional surrender. No way that they'd give Japan a chance to rebuild itself outside of their complete control. Just not going to happen anymore then they'd let Germany rebuild itself outside of their countrol.

The real delima historically, as I understand it, is Russia. The Russians would of been poised for invading Japan along with the U.S.. Weither or not Japanese would of allowed the Russian army to invade Japan before surrendering is the deciding factor on weither or not the Nuclear bombs were nessicary. There would of been a lot of rascism and ancestoral stuff going on between the Russians and Japanese. (meaning it would of sucked worse for the Japanese then it did for the Eastern European countries.) But to me this is only a question realy asked in hindsight as a historical debating point.

Would of Japan done a unconditional surrender to the Americans just based on the threat of having part of their country subject to Russian occuption? Maybe, I don't think the answer is very obvious (one way or another) and it was much less obvious in 1945. Germany didn't follow this path. The allies had to fight through the entire country until they destroyed the seat of government before the Germans surrendered. And even then after that there was resistance groups that fought against the occupation for years and years before they finally gave up.

As for scaring Russians with nuclear weapons.. a demostration on a small island would of been enough. I think that it's likely the display of weapons on the Japanese was hoped to leave a big impression the Russians, but that would of been a tertiary goal. Primary being to scare Japan to surrender, and secondary to reduce enemy resources if that didn't work.

German resistance AFTER WWII?

Posted Sep 25, 2006 13:24 UTC (Mon) by morhippo (guest, #334) [Link]

Never heard of it. AFAICS, the Germans very pretty docile once they had surrendered. Could you give me a source that there has been German resistance for years?

I am German and I have never heard of such a thing.

DRM good or evil?

Posted Sep 24, 2006 6:35 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

is it evil even if you found it on the street (honestly, some street gang left it there), and by accident you are attacked by a drunk maniac weilding an axe, who kills your dog with a single blow and now threatens to kill you, your wife and your son?

What can I tell you, yes, it is evil but it can have some good uses. Not that leaving automatic assault rifles on the street is generally a good idea, with all those little kids running around and such, but if some responsible adult found it and a drunk maniac attacked said adult at the same time, it could have a good use, yes.

In my case I would probably kill the drunk maniac, the wife, the kid and some other pedestrians based on my lack of expertise. A simple, non-automatic weapon would be better. Now, before you advocate that "combat weapon training is a good thing in some situations", just give me a good old axe and make it even. After all the maniac is drunk and I am not.

Were thus those, "defensive" atomic bombs "evil" too? Or did they save humanity from total destruction?

Total destruction from bombs from the other side? Yeah, really good bombs then.

If you had the choice, and this discovery was inevitable, which country would you have picked to discover the atomic bomb? Nazi Germany? Communist China under the rule of Mao? The Soviet Union under the rule of Stalin? Or maybe the USA?

Doing simple extrapolation from casualty figures, I would answer "anyone but the USA". No other country has used it against humans. This is not some communist opinion, it is cold-blooded extrapolation.

DRM was not invented today, it was in use for more than a decade in probably every desktop chip that you used - and the use of that type of DRM was considered totally good. (the Intel microcode upload mechanism is DRM.)

Ahem. It is most definitely not DRM. There are no "rights" there to manage at all. I think you are confusing encryption and trusted computing with DRM. According to the wikipedia, TC is "an enabler for DRM", but it is not the same. I do not think that TC is evil all the way, even if Stallman does.

I believe you only consider DRM "evil" because you are seeing it used for evil things in things like DVD players.

I believe I consider DRM evil because it is the wrong solution to the wrong problem. First you have to make TC pervasive, then you have to lock down all computers all the way for DRM to work; in the process you must shut down all those pesky researchers, or any loophole will get exploited to death. Distribution of source code is not possible and deployment of new binaries is unthinkable.

When all music is locked down, it is the day that we go back to pre-CD-ROM days. We lose the convenience of digital music, and we lose fair use. So we probably stop buying music.