My problem isn't with the discussion of the topic. It was with the lack of substance in his article. This particular article was basicly a headline. Did you feel that his article, while "touching a nerve" actually made a point
and backed it up? Your reply to my rant
had the substance that his article, in a national publication, lacked.
Do I think that a discussion of DRM is important? Yes, but I don't necessarily think of the technology companies as the bad guys. I generally see them as
legal enablers of consumption. I think a lot of the conversations get lost in classifying things it terms of good or evil.
You brought up an interesting point with your copyright example. Why should mickey mouse serve the public good? Not that it's a bad thing; but why? Why is it bad for the owner to determine it's use? If I created a work of art (not that I have a creative bone in my body) that I could derive income from, and I wished to leave it to my decendents, so they could continue to derive income from it (assuming anyone still was willing to pay for it) is that wrong? I'm not saying that this is the way it should be, but it did make me think about the question.
And I'm actully going to think more about your post, but I'm at work now and I need to get back to it.
-- cheers