Re: [libreplanet-discuss] My First of Five

[Fabio Pesari]

Hi Julien,

I am sorry but your post isn't really clear or easy to follow, so I'll
address the parts which I could understand:

On 04/05/2016 12:49 PM, Julien Kyou wrote:
> 
> -FSF was suggesting that a central server that runs a program for you is a 
> bad idea. Although their point is good (that it is dangerous to have this), 
> it nonetheless has its advantages:
> 
> --Multiplayer games could not run without this happening

That's not always true: many multiplayer games nowadays use what is
called "matchmaking", which is a way to play online without dedicated
servers (the game is hosted by one or more of the players).

> --Secure databases that must be protected from tampering (ex bank accounts, 
> multiplayer games, cloud storage) could not work without this happening

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_database

> --It is a lot less bandwidth, user time and effort to send a few bytes of 
> data to a computer and have it run the code vs sending a request for it to 
> send KB or MB of data that makes up the program, then download dependencies, 
> install the program, run it, then go to the trouble of uninstalling it after 
> you're done with it.

Compared to what? A native program consumes _zero_ bandwidth compared to
its SaaSS counterpart (unless you want it to).

> I would not sign the DRM thing even if it was active without more convincing 
> (it sounds like the deadline is March 2 and we're in April). I do not see how 
> DRM locks you out of your device, nor locks you into your device in any 
> special way (other than being unable to copy stuff you aren't supposed to 
> copy). Forcing DRM out of the system without fixing the system is implicitly 
> allowing piracy, which isn't healthy. Many things we get for free require DRM 
> (ex loaning library books or movies; you can do this online, but only with 
> DRM), or else they wouldn't be offered in the first place.

This is harder to deal with. Considering how real-life libraries work
(each transaction is logged, there are only a few copies for every book,
books must be given back), then to me DRM looks like a reasonable
implementation.

Do I think it's fair? No, it isn't. But rationally, it makes sense, and
I can't think of many other ways to achieve this without angering the
publishers (who don't want DRM-free PDFs floating around), and since
it's their books it's also their rules.

DRM is bad for a number of reasons, mainly that it requires users to
blindly trust proprietary code. If said users don't have a problem with
that (and judging by the percentage of Windows, iOS and Android users,
they don't), there is no reason for them to dislike DRM.

DRM in hardware is a whole another issue: monitors and CPUs are bad
enough, but think about self-driving cars or medical implants. Those
things can decide who lives and who dies and DRM in them is frankly
dangerous. But again, it's their devices and their rules. What must be
prevented is DRM becoming legally obligatory, which I think could happen
in some fields (3D printing comes to my mind).