Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!]

[Matthias Andree]

On Sun, 27 Apr 2003, Larry McVoy wrote:

>     1) Corporations are threatened when people copy their content and/or
>        products.

The problem you're not seeing is: how much of that "content/products" is
taken from other products?

>     2) Corporations have a lot of money which they use to get the government
>        to create laws to protect the corporate interests.

So make the last step, abolish elections, they're just show to pretend
there were a democracy. The government does not have the right to act in
the corporate interests, look at the consitution and see what oath is
prescribed. Provided your country is a democracy, officials will have to
swear to serve the people and only the people and its good, turn away
damage and all that.

Lopsided constructs "but the corporations make jobs" are then often used
to bully/get bullied into making corporate friendly decisions without
checking if they are for the good of the people. 

>     3) Corporations have a lot of money which they use to create technology
>        which will remove threats to the corporation.

Granted.

>     4) The more you inist that you are doing nothing wrong the more motivated
>        the corporation becomes to stop you.

5) Corporations that make products tailored to the (potential)
   customers' needs may not have to think about #4 at all.

> This isn't a BK thing, we don't have lobbyists in Washington get laws
> passed on our behalf.  This is my private opinion based on observing
> what's happened in the last five years or so.  The world is moving more
> and more towards a place where IP is the significant source of revenue.

IP is not the thing that let society come to life the way it is now.
Societies have started to work our way because specializing people and
trading goods freed resources that were to the good of everybody. If
hunters go hunting not just for themselves, but share their prey and get
tools (say, bow and arrow) in return for food, they get more efficient.

This hasn't been about intellectual property, but sharing knowledge.

What do you think will happen when basic arithmetics become IP? Why do
you think basic arithmetics are public knowledge rather than IP? Why do
you think it should remain this way -- or changed?

If I invent something *really* new, then I'd think granting a patent for
like 10 years might be worthwhile (with some exceptions, say for
medicine: the state should always have the right to buy out a patent
from a corp by covering the development costs and then releasing the
patent). Just letting something evolve or tuning something that already
exists is not worth a patent -- not even copyright protection (which
happens with much of the music nowadays...)