Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hacker
The other scary thing that's being discussed, is prohibiting people from connecting to the Internet unless their computer is "approved" to do so, via the CPUID and DRM-in-silicon methods. ISPs and service providers will simply forbid you from connecting unless your OS and hardware supports their key system.
|
You would think all this sort of thing is rediculous and couldn't happen because it's "outrageous." But if you think about it, stuff gets put into place not always because it makes sense, but often because of legal or political maneuvers, or even adoption of distasteful policies that are accepted incrementally because the slow adoption keeps any resistance from becoming strong or organized.
As far as DRM required to get onto the internet, I find it hard to believe that it can be "sealed" down completely that way, but you never know. For one thing, ISPs could be forced to go along if they are being held liable for copyright damages if they don't follow the DRM rules. And individuals who try to devise ways around it may also find that they are facing more legal action than they dare to withstand. Such as DVD Decrypter for example.
I hope this is not our future because it's certainly not a required "moral" solution. Don't let anyone tell you that it's more moral to make a law that says you can't freely use content than one that allows, say, free use after 3 years. The only moral issue I see is obedience to the law and authority, and that one is going to be a very personal decision for each of us. So I don't believe it's a moral issue, or that it's inherently criminal to copy content apart from civil obedience to the law.
It's really just a matter of lawmakers and judges determining how to balance the public interest between content protection and fair use. There are not just the obvious and great benefits of free use to consider, but also the impact on how much content is produced. But I think people would be happy to have a little less content available if they were given "freer" use of what's already out there. Is there really any reason why movies or songs from 40years ago should not be in the public domain?
Unfortunately, that balacing act seems to be much less based on public interest for the average person, and much more based on the special interests in the recording and publishing industry.