DRM technology and policy

[Derek Atkins]

bear <bear at sonic.net> writes:

> On 24 Apr 2003, Derek Atkins wrote:
> 
> >Adam, I don't know exactly what you do for a living, but would you
> >continue to do it if people morally felt that they should not pay you
> >for doing it?
> 
> And would you feel morally entitled to be paid if your audience
> noticed that amateurs better at it than you were doing it for free?
> 
> Hint: It's hard to compete with free.

No, but when I know I'm better than those amateurs...  "you get
what you pay for".  There is no way I could perform as well as
some bands that I like.  Similarly, there is no way they could
program as well as I could.

So, when I'm doing work *I* get to choose whether I'm working for
free or working for hire.  It's _my_ choice.  And if I choose
to ask for payment for my work, you can choose to go elsewhere,
or you can choose to pay me.  However, just because you pay me
does not necessarily give you the right to redistribute my work
for free behind my back.

> This is the dilemma that software houses are facing now.  And if you
> go check out some big internet music sites, you'll see that musicians
> are beginning to get the same treatment that free software is giving
> Microsoft.

I'm not just talking about software.  Indeed, I'm _not_ talking about
software.  I'm talking about art, music, literature...

> I just don't see a need to expend effort to protect the payment stream
> of an industry that's doomed anyway.

Note that I'm not talking about the industry.  I'm not talking about
MPAA or RIAA.  I'm talking about the individual artists; I'm talking
about Pink Floyds, Jewels, Neil Youngs, Mozarts, and Nickel Creeks of
the world.

> 				Bear

-derek

-- 
       Derek Atkins
       Computer and Internet Security Consultant
       derek at ihtfp.com             www.ihtfp.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at metzdowd.com