[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GPL & Anti-DRM Clause
From: |
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra |
Subject: |
Re: GPL & Anti-DRM Clause |
Date: |
Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:40:03 +0000 |
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 10:21 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> Rui writes:
> > Since Digital Restrictions Management doesn't affect only generic
> > computers but also the access to works (which can be revoked), I disagree
> > and maintain my generic view that DRM is theft.
>
> DRM backed up by law is abusive, but DRM alone is a private matter.
The law only protect circunvention. But suppose circunvention wasn't
technically feasible...
Regardless of law, DRM is theft. If there sould be a law, it should
forbid DRM.
Rui
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- GPL & Anti-DRM Clause, D.C. Parris, 2006/02/10
- Re: GPL & Anti-DRM Clause, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra, 2006/02/10
- Message not available
- Re: GPL & Anti-DRM Clause, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/02/10
- Re: GPL & Anti-DRM Clause, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra, 2006/02/10
- Message not available
- Re: GPL & Anti-DRM Clause, David Kastrup, 2006/02/10
- Re: GPL & Anti-DRM Clause, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra, 2006/02/10
- Message not available
- Re: GPL & Anti-DRM Clause, John Hasler, 2006/02/10
- Re: GPL & Anti-DRM Clause,
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <=
- Message not available
- Re: GPL & Anti-DRM Clause, John Hasler, 2006/02/10
- Message not available
- Re: GPL & Anti-DRM Clause, Barry Margolin, 2006/02/10
- Re: GPL & Anti-DRM Clause, Gordon Burditt, 2006/02/12