A cost analysis of Vista content protection

Posted Dec 25, 2006 8:10 UTC (Mon) by drag (guest, #31333)
In reply to: A cost analysis of Vista content protection by jamienk
Parent article: A cost analysis of Vista content protection

""The one government regulation is the result of monopolists pretty much paying to have intricate, draconian, and weird laws passed to protect their business models, enforce their monopolies, and all but guarantee them more income than the amounts they paid for the laws.

The other government regulation is the result of nutritionists fighting to stop machine-made poisons from being sold as foods.""

BOTH ARE JUST AS BAD.

Seriously. You don't know were this is leading do you?

Just stop and pause.. Stop assuming that eveybody else is a moron and knows nothing about nuturion and they need to be protected from 'big transfat' and realise the implications of a government controlling foods becuase they do not approve of the nutrional content.

Oh sure,your freedom is sooo important when it comes to being able to copy files, but on the other hand it's completely irrelevent when it comes to how you run a business.

Do you not see the irony? Which freedom do you think is more important?

A cost analysis of Vista content protection

Posted Jan 4, 2007 6:33 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] (1 responses)

> Stop assuming that eveybody else is a moron and knows nothing about nuturion and they need to be protected from 'big transfat' and realise the implications of a government controlling foods becuase they do not approve of the nutrional content.

So presumably adding sand, heroin, arsenic or polonium-210 to foodstuffs and not telling your customers that you've done so should also be perfectly legal, if that's what the consumer is willing to tolerate when spending their dollars?

I'm as individualist as they come, but sadly the consumer who makes a rational decision based on complete and correct information at all times is about as likely to be spotted in the wild as the Loch Ness Monster. Especially when consumers are increasingly required to distinguish between conflicting authoritative claims... if even experts cannot reach consensus, how on earth is the average consumer supposed to choose? In such a situation the only sensible choice is not to consume unless you know and trust the production. (For example, only eating what you grow, catch or hunt yourself.)

I'm scarcely the first person to moot this, and I wish I were so much better at acting on it, but: Self-sufficiency is a prerequisite for functional liberty. If you don't have the freedom to refuse all choices and go your own way, you have no freedom at all - and the freedom is pointless without the ability.

(Having said which, I think banning advertising in all forms would accomplish a HELL of a lot more for people's health, not to mention their sanity, than banning particular "bad" substances. After all, advertising is basically systematic manipulation - brainwashing, frankly - and every bit as coercive as the use of force. We live in a world where people taste a beer differently depending on what they believe its brand name to be... advertisers take full advantage of the chasm between how much we *do* trust our senses and our judgement, and how much we *should*.)

A cost analysis of Vista content protection

Posted Jan 4, 2007 6:41 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]

> not telling your customers that you've done so

...should read "not making any particular effort to let your customers know that you've done so, on the grounds that if they care enough to want to know they'll ask"