Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BobR
I doubt that a single person in the recording industries honestly believes that it's for the good of the public, even though that's the legal justification. At best, maybe they believe that every single movie and album is so important that it's in the interest of society to make great sacrifice, i.e. to send lots and lots of money to the entertainment industry in a manner protected by government just so the marginal movies and music can be made. Hey, if we taxed more and sent the extra money to the movie industry, maybe we could even get more movies and music made. (Tongue firmly in cheek.) But is that right and good for all? I suppose content producers might honestly believe that it would be a tragedy for society if a few things were not made. But I say ask the average person what they want. A few more movies and music or DRM-free content that the government doesn't try to tell you how to use, and that is really yours when you buy it.
|
Wow, Bob, thank you for sharing your view with us. I admire your line of argumentation! - back to the topic: the same is true with cheaper life-saving generics for Third World countries. Consider cases such as Africa, where some devastated communities are 70% HIV-positive, and people are too poor to pay for proper medication. Here, one
must look for alternatives (such as generic products) to help them. In the case of DRM, already it would be a big step forward if content producers were offering DRM-protected material for free or considerably less than in the "developed" countries. It doesn't have to be free of DRM to help poor countries. It only has to be somehow
accessible to the poor!