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

[Jim Penny]

On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 10:21:07AM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
> So I don't agree that the DRM stuff is all about protecting audio/video
> content at all, I think it goes much further than that.  Maybe I'm
> wrong, maybe DRM isn't all about that, but the point remains that there
> is lots of activity in the directions I'm describing and whether it
> falls under DRM, DMCA, Trusted Computing, Palladium, of BuzzWord2000,
> the activity exists.  And I think it exists at least in part because
> of the threat of the open source reimplementations.  I'm starting to
> think I'm the only person on this list who thinks that, that may be,
> but in the business world that I move in pretty much everyone thinks that.

But the timeline is simply wrong.  DMCA is an implementation of the WIPO
TRIPS treaties, which was passed in 1996, well before open-source was a
common topic.

See http://www.public-domain.org/wipo/dec96/dec96.html
In particular, note the EFF comment and the comment by "Software
Developers".  Even these most relevant sources simply did not raise the
issue.

DRM is another issue.  I think it is primarily an effect of the Hollywood
reality distortion field.  They think that useful computers that are not
Turing complete can be built; and if such machines cannot be built, well, 
Hollywood thinks that digital communication is error free and occurs 
without charge and with infinite bandwidth at infinite distance, putting 
them permanently out of business.

Jim Penny