<div dir="ltr">The only exception I think to the 'recall + money back' would be I think Toyota's cars. Ref: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%9311_Toyota_vehicle_recalls">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%9311_Toyota_vehicle_recalls</a> </div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:chaitanyabd@gmail.com" target="_blank">chaitanyabd@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="im"><div>> I think that it's very important that when cultural goods are sold<br> > rather than shared freely, it must be possible to buy without the<br>
> “who bought what” information getting recorded in some kind of database.</div>
<div> </div></div><div>I say this is already being done. Moot point as DRM is not the culprit here. Again I reiterate that I'm against DRM</div><div class="im"><div> </div><div>> The specification which is under discussion foresees that an additional<br>
> component will be needed in addition to OS + Browser + Movie Player:<br> > A “content decryption module” (CDM).<br><br> > In my opinion, it is not plausible to expect the CDMs to be made<br> > available for Free Software operating system platforms. (Doing so would<br>
> make it trivially easy to defeat what that whole architecture with the<br> > CDMs is seeking to achieve.)</div><div> </div></div><div>Doing so will not prevent the FS community from utilizing the resources/material that have been rightfully purchased; so there's no question of this obstructing use on an open OS or otherwise. It will not prevent the open source community from utilizing what they've bought. My point is that this is <em>not a sufficient basis</em> for rejecting DRM. Again, for clarity's sake noting here that I'm against DRM</div>
<div> </div><div>The key reason I'm against DRM is here:</div><div>In one instance of DRM that caused a rift with consumers, <a title="Amazon.com" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com" target="_blank"><font color="#0066cc">Amazon.com</font></a> remotely deleted purchased copies of <a title="George Orwell" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell" target="_blank"><font color="#0066cc">George Orwell</font></a>'s <i><a title="Nineteen Eighty-Four" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four" target="_blank"><font color="#0066cc">Nineteen Eighty-Four</font></a></i> and <i><a title="Animal Farm" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm" target="_blank"><font color="#0066cc">Animal Farm</font></a></i> from customers' <a title="Amazon Kindle" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Kindle" target="_blank"><font color="#0066cc">Amazon Kindles</font></a> after providing them a refund for the purchased products.<sup><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management#cite_note-44" target="_blank"><font color="#0066cc"><font><span>[</span>44<span>]</span></font></font></a></sup> Commentators have widely described these actions as <a title="Orwellian" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwellian" target="_blank"><font color="#0066cc">Orwellian</font></a>, and have alluded to <a title="Big Brother (Nineteen Eighty-Four)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Brother_(Nineteen_Eighty-Four)" target="_blank"><font color="#0066cc">Big Brother</font></a> from Orwell's <i>Nineteen Eighty-Four</i>.<sup><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management#cite_note-45" target="_blank"><font color="#0066cc"><font><span>[</span>45<span>]</span></font></font></a></sup><sup><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management#cite_note-46" target="_blank"><font color="#0066cc"><font><span>[</span>46<span>]</span></font></font></a></sup><sup><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management#cite_note-47" target="_blank"><font color="#0066cc"><font><span>[</span>47<span>]</span></font></font></a></sup><sup><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management#cite_note-48" target="_blank"><font color="#0066cc"><font><span>[</span>48<span>]</span></font></font></a></sup> After an Amazon CEO <a title="Jeff Bezos" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos" target="_blank"><font color="#0066cc">Jeff Bezos</font></a> issued a public apology, the <a title="Free Software Foundation" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation" target="_blank"><font color="#0066cc">Free Software Foundation</font></a> wrote that this was just one more example of the excessive power Amazon has to remotely censor what people read through its software, and called upon Amazon to free its e-book reader and drop DRM.<sup><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management#cite_note-49" target="_blank"><font color="#0066cc"><font><span>[</span>49<span>]</span></font></font></a></sup> Amazon then revealed that the reason behind its deletion was the ebooks in question were unauthorized reproductions of Orwell's works, which were not within the public domain and to which the company that published and sold them on Amazon's service had no rights.<sup><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management#cite_note-50" target="_blank"><font><font color="#0066cc"><span>[</span>50<span>]</span></font></font></a></sup></div>
<div> </div><div>ref: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management</a> </div><div> </div><div>I would personally hate it if I bought a software/book/movie/ whatever, and then the seller comes back to me and says "yes we're recalling it and you'll get your money back" with some fragile excuse of 'unauthorized replication' - which THEY should have checked FIRST. That's their problem, not mine - and is also a different argument which we shouldn't get into at this point. </div>
<div> </div><div>That apart, various Digital Restrictions Management mechanisms have existed in the past - many of which have been bypassed, cracked & patched out of the software. Some of which were so trivial to bypass it's like it didn't exist in the first place. Sooner or later they were bound to want greater control over what they make/sell - but that's neither here nor there. IMHO if "goods once sold are sold for good" the rights to store that as we want to store it belong to us (with the understanding of course that we would not pirate/resell/etc it). </div>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<div> </div><div>-C</div></font></span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5">On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Norbert Bollow <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch" target="_blank">nb@bollow.ch</a>></span> wrote:<br>
</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div><div class="h5"><div>Chaitanya Dhareshwar <<a href="mailto:chaitanyabd@gmail.com" target="_blank">chaitanyabd@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> In the context of Disney movies - assuming "purchased" and not<br>
> "pirated" - wouldnt the purchaser already be exposing their identity<br>
> for the purchase validation process?<br>
<br>
</div>I think that it's very important that when cultural goods are sold<br>
rather than shared freely, it must be possible to buy without the<br>
“who bought what” information getting recorded in some kind of database.<br>
<br>
For example, I have literature which is of a kind that (in some<br>
totalitarian states) people have been literally persecuted and killed<br>
for having.<br>
<br>
This kind of potential risk is not only in regard to human rights<br>
violations by states. What if some kind of terrorist organization<br>
delares a “jihad” against all who read a certain book or watch a<br>
certain video?<br>
<br>
<br>
I think that this is a relevant concern in regard to DRM, even if it<br>
not one that I have been addressing in my recent posting. There I was<br>
talking about protecting one's privacy in regard to communications etc<br>
by means of using a Free Software operating system platform, and about<br>
the potential dilemma that could easily arise if DRM'd content becomes<br>
increasingly important (from the user's perspective) but because of the<br>
DRM it is not accessible using a Free Software operating system<br>
platform.<br>
<div><br>
> Further DRM as a part of the standard would mean that browsers that<br>
> work on *nix platforms would also support the standard (for example<br>
> this list here:<br>
> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_browsers_for_Unix_and_Unix-like_operating_systems)." target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_browsers_for_Unix_and_Unix-like_operating_systems).</a>..<br>
> In fact most browsers would sooner or later have built in support for<br>
> DRM just in the process of following the standard. Thus people using<br>
> an open source platform (using Linux as an example) would easily be<br>
> able to make the purchase, as well as watch the movie both using<br>
> freely available (OS + Browser + Movie Player).<br>
<br>
</div>The specification which is under discussion foresees that an additional<br>
component will be needed in addition to OS + Browser + Movie Player:<br>
A “content decryption module” (CDM).<br>
<br>
In my opinion, it is not plausible to expect the CDMs to be made<br>
available for Free Software operating system platforms. (Doing so would<br>
make it trivially easy to defeat what that whole architecture with the<br>
CDMs is seeking to achieve.)<br>
<div><br>
<br>
Roland Perry <<a href="mailto:roland@internetpolicyagency.com" target="_blank">roland@internetpolicyagency.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> It seems to me that there's a mistaken concept of "freedom to listen"<br>
> (by all and any available means) in addition to the well accepted<br>
> concept of "freedom of speech".<br>
><br>
> Is it an infringement of my human rights if I have to buy an X-box to<br>
> run a particular X-box game, because my open source *nix PC won't<br>
> play the game?<br>
<br>
</div>That's not the type of situation that I'm protesting against.<br>
<br>
Suppose someone has an X-box (with some games) and a PC with Microsoft<br>
Windows as OS. Two separate physical machines which connect to the<br>
Internet using the same IP address (via a NAT box). The person then<br>
replaces Microsoft Windows on the PC with a different OS which the<br>
user believe has better privacy protection properties. If that action<br>
has the consequence that the X-box gets remotely disabled, making all<br>
the games on the X-box unplayable on the X-box, then I'd say that that<br>
situation is analogous to DRM's cultural goods which are accessible<br>
only on some “mainstream” operating system platforms but not on user<br>
modifiable operating system platforms.<br>
<div><div><br>
Greetings,<br>
Norbert<br>
<br>
--<br>
Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC:<br>
1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person<br>
2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div><br></div></div><div class="im">____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>