John A. Bailo wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> Free Music--Next Year?
>> | from SpiralFrog will have to log on to the site at least once a
>> | month to ensure that their downloaded tracks remain playable.
>
> Rhapsody has been doing that for years.
>
>> The Top 10 Arguments Against DRM
>
> Those are all good arguments. But here's the Top 1 Argument for DRM.
>
> Given that an unobstrusive DRM scheme can be perfected *technically*
It can't. And never will be
Apart from the fact that those idiots can eat their shit, as I will not buy
it. Not ever. Even *copyprotected* CDs are off-limits for myself
> is
> there any logical or moral reason why you wouldn't want DRM? Isn't fair
> that, no matter what you think of the present system of ownership, that
> one who has created content should be allowed to have a system with which
> to track usage?
>
>
No, nobody should *ever* be allowed that.
With what rights would someone be allowed to *track* *usage* after it has
been paid for? The only rights of the creators/owners is then not to be
smacked hard with a baseball bat for their intrusion attempt
--
I just found out that the brain is like a computer.
If that's true, then there really aren't any stupid people.
Just people running Windows.
|
|
