Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Why DRM exists (or: Larry's cloning complaint) | From | Dax Kelson <> | Date | 27 Apr 2003 21:28:27 -0600 |
| |
Larry, you did a horrible -- horrible -- job in stating your argument/complaint/statement that makes it hard to respond to in any meaningful way.
You used the word "copying" with two different meanings in a long discussion that intermingled Open Source development, DRM, multiple implementations of software striving for the same goal, and software theft (warez) and Audio/Video content theft.
The best response I can make is:
1. Everyone agrees that using (warezing) software in violation of it's license is wrong. Everyone agrees that unauthorized copying of Audio/Video content is wrong. WTF does this have to do with Open Source?
2. In my observation, most modern "DRM" systems target copying of Audio/Video content, NOT software. Your statement "The open source community, in my opinion, is certainly a contributing factor in the emergence of the DMCA and DRM efforts." boggles the mind. WTF does this have to do with Open Source?
Now getting on the crux of your complaint (again, WTF was all this warezing/DRM nonsense):
3. Reverse engineering and multiple competing implementations of software is allowed and upheld in courts over and over again (unless patent infringement is involved). You are very unhappy with this.
There are thousands of examples of competing implementations, many not even involving Open Source.
Larry, where would your company be today if Compaq and Phoenix didn't reverse engineer the IBM PC BIOS?
Larry, how much money do you make from people using Linux as their OS platform? After all, it is competitive implementation of UNIX?
So on one hand, this LEGAL activity of reverse engineering and competing implementations has benefited you and your company, and on the other, it might put you out of business some day.
Deal with it. Your situation is no different then thousands of other companies. Nobody forced you into your line of business.
Did Wordperfect complain in public about MS Word re-implementing features that Wordperfect created? How about WordStar?
Multiple competing implementations (Open Source or otherwise) is GOOD FOR THE CONSUMER!
For most non-niche problems (especially the larger ones), there are going to be competing software solutions. There will likely be an Open Source competitor in there. Assuming the problem is irritating enough, the Open Source competitor will be vibrant and constantly improving. Eventually the Open Source competitor will mature and powerful. The commercial guys better scramble to stay ahead feature wise, lower the price of their offering (witness Windows 2003 Web Server Edition), or offer a service/"total solution". Software is slowly, eventually becoming a commodity. Eventually, the lion share of revenue will come from "services", not software licensing.
Not a fun position to be in for the commercial software vendor, but oh what a lovely environment for the consumer!
Companies have no god given right to have a market. Companies have no god given right to earn a profit (unless a govt allowed monopoly, ie Telcos). Time marches on, things change. Adapt or die.
Dax Kelson
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |