Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on July 16, 2006 02:38 PM
The difference is that there are laws protecting fair use of material, which, by technical means, they subvert.
However, I have no problem with them releasing their material under any license they choose. And just as with software released under the GPL, I, (or you, or anyone else) am free to say, "No, thanks." I have chosen to opt out of purchasing music (or downloading it, even illegally) and of purchasing software with restrictive license terms.
The music and movie industries think their stuff is so desireable that people will agree to anything in order to have it. Maybe that is true for many people, but not me. But as I said, I have no problem with them, or Microsoft, or anyone else, releasing software or entertainment under any kind of license they choose. If they feel it will make them money and if people are willing to give up their fair-use rights, they can. I won't, but they can.
People have a right to give up their own freedom. They do not have a right to forcibly take it away from someone else. And that is what we are talking about here.
I would guess by your remarks that you expect me to apply one standard to free software and a different, incongruent attitude toward proprietary software and other restrictive licenses. I do not. Before I used free software I was a DOS, OS/2, and Windows user. My friends offered me unlicensed copies of software at no charge to me. I always refused to participate in such transactions.
The result was that I always had fully licensed copies of software, but never had enough, because it was generally too expensive to purchase everything I wanted.
When I discovered I could have a complete system by purchasing a Linux distribution for a fraction of the cost of Windows and its associated applications, I was highly motivated to switch.
So, no, I do not have a problem with them enforcing their license terms. In fact, I encourage them to do so. The more costly it is for people to engage in sharing unlicensed music, movies and software to avoid paying high prices, the more people there will be that will be motivated, like I was, to find reasonably priced, fully licensed, alternatives. And if they are successful in enforcing their licenses, they will have effectively shot themselves in the foot by alienating their market. So I say, "Good shooting."
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:It's more important that people be free....
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 16, 2006 02:38 PMHowever, I have no problem with them releasing their material under any license they choose. And just as with software released under the GPL, I, (or you, or anyone else) am free to say, "No, thanks." I have chosen to opt out of purchasing music (or downloading it, even illegally) and of purchasing software with restrictive license terms.
The music and movie industries think their stuff is so desireable that people will agree to anything in order to have it. Maybe that is true for many people, but not me. But as I said, I have no problem with them, or Microsoft, or anyone else, releasing software or entertainment under any kind of license they choose. If they feel it will make them money and if people are willing to give up their fair-use rights, they can. I won't, but they can.
People have a right to give up their own freedom. They do not have a right to forcibly take it away from someone else. And that is what we are talking about here.
I would guess by your remarks that you expect me to apply one standard to free software and a different, incongruent attitude toward proprietary software and other restrictive licenses. I do not. Before I used free software I was a DOS, OS/2, and Windows user. My friends offered me unlicensed copies of software at no charge to me. I always refused to participate in such transactions.
The result was that I always had fully licensed copies of software, but never had enough, because it was generally too expensive to purchase everything I wanted.
When I discovered I could have a complete system by purchasing a Linux distribution for a fraction of the cost of Windows and its associated applications, I was highly motivated to switch.
So, no, I do not have a problem with them enforcing their license terms. In fact, I encourage them to do so. The more costly it is for people to engage in sharing unlicensed music, movies and software to avoid paying high prices, the more people there will be that will be motivated, like I was, to find reasonably priced, fully licensed, alternatives. And if they are successful in enforcing their licenses, they will have effectively shot themselves in the foot by alienating their market. So I say, "Good shooting."
#