Re: [Fsuk-manchester] Arguments against free software and DRM is a good thing

[Noah Slater]

Peter,

I'm not sure what the purpose of your email was - it feels a bit
troll-like, but I may be totally wrong, so please excuse me.

> Bit of a conflation of issues here. Why should software be free? It costs
> a lot of money to develop and large teams of software developers need to
> feed and clothe themselves.

Totally different definition of "free" that the FSF. This person is
either very confused or is trying to confuse others.

> However as we saw with Web 2.0 and open source movements this isnt
> forever. Arguably without Microsofy we would be about 10 years away from
> where we are now in terms of web functionality which requires a degree of
> uniformity and interoperability.

This is so absurdly untrue it actually made me laugh - this guy is
either completely disillusional or is make a joke. He can't possibly
be trying to convince people of this.

Microsofy (sic) is one of the biggest obstacles to obtaining
international open standards compliance.

> BBC need to DRM their content as everyone who pays £135 a year for
> unlimited downloads (i.e. watching TV) is being ripped off by those who
> chose not to and get it all for free off the net. I wouldnt be happy if I
> had to pay to watch whilst some other guy ripped it all off for nothing.

This is also completely misleading - the BBC are not providing a web
based version of all of the available channels. Also, I think they are
limiting it to licence payers - but I may be completely wrong on that
count.

> If I was a programme maker I wouldnt sell to the BBC unless they had this
> in place.

And his point is?

> We are talking about a different market to music here with much
> more limited re-sale and reuse opportunities for programme makers.

How would this actually harm the re-sale and reuse opportunities for
programme makers? This statement is completely irrelevant  to the
point the person is making.

> No-one objects to not being allowed to record movies in the cinema, why
> should TV  be any different?

Does this person have figures to back up that statement? In either
case - I am perfectly within my rights (as settled by court in the
80's with the advent of VHS) to record TV programmes - so if anything
this is counter productive to the point this person is trying to make.

> As for free laptop software (OLPM) I am quite sure that it wouldnt take an
> enterprising programmer to knock out a DRM license compatable viewer in a
> few weeks.

What does this even mean?

> Not sure that this issue is worth supporting or has much political merit.

Fascinating, thanks for sharing this opinion. I really fancy some
pasta for dinner tonight. Sorry, did he /have/ a point?

> other methods of education? Having a laptop doesnt advance an education,

No, and neither does good text books, field trips, varied curriculum,
writing material, a good sports hall or full time teachers. Give me a
break.

> good teaching does that and a stimulating environment, so if that is the
> main reason for having a go at the BBC then it is a bit weak in my opinion.

Right, so the reason that education in the poorest parts of Africa is
failing the next generation of children because all the African
teachers are terrible at their job - it has nothing to do with the
resources and teaching equipment available.

> Far better to have a go about their appalling outsourcing of programming,
> swingeing cuts in newsgathering and broadcasting staff and a whole host
> of more important issues.

Also, AIDS, militant rape in the middle east, global warming, women
abuse, torture, totalitarian dictatorships, the cure for cancer and
various other things are also very important - lets all stop what
we're doing until /all/ of these are solved first.

Noah

-- 
"Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so
far as society is free to use the results." - R. Stallman