[kFW] All-Inclusivity (DRM and Kendra)

["Pat Gratton" <gratton@xxxxxxxxx>]

I'm breaking my reply to "Kendra Status" (on kGen) into two parts (and
sending this part to kFW, since the RMS thread is there).

I'll start with something that you'll completely disagree with...  One of my
dictums in life is: If you're not pissing someone off, then you're probably
doing something wrong!   Either you're unclearly stating you
opinions/ideas/design, or you're not paying close enough attention to
people's reactions.

While "all-inclusivity" sounds good, the fact is that some people's
viewpoints/desires are diametrically opposed.  So if you take any stance on
the issue that they care about, then you're going to piss off at least one
of them.

So, the good news (according to my dictum) is that you've managed to raise
the hackles of RMS by supporting DRM!  The bad news is that you think that
this is avoidable somehow!  It's not - RMS is diametrically opposed to any
system that allows purveyors of information to limit acccess of users to
information - which is exactly what DRM does.

Some notes on the previous DRM thread...

RMS said...
>In its form, this appears to be a neutral stance, but its substance is
>a specific and controversial political position.  It says that the
>content owner makes the decisions about what the user can do--the user
>does not decide for himself.  It gives rights owners, but to users it
>gives only suffrance.
>
>I disagree with that position--I think users should have rights.
>
> ...
>
 >"Charged for" could mean a server asks for a payment before permitting
 >a download, or it could mean the server tries to impose Digital
 >Restrictions Management.  These are very different issues, so your
 >respose doesn't actual say whether Kendra will support Digital
 >Restrictions Management.  Could you tell me?

It's informative that RMS characterizes DRM as Digital "Restrictions"
Management.  He see them primarily as restrictions on the the "rights" of
information consumers.  (The obvious observation is that ALL rights are
restrictions!  The right to free speech restricts the government from
attempting to shut me up.  Copy rights restrict non-IP owners from copying
or distributing IP.)  Is he offended because rights for one party are
restrictions for another party?  Then he's offended by the notion of
"right"!

And Daniel said...
> The issues that I see Richard raising and my thoughts:
>
> - content owners and content consumers should have equal rights when it
> comes to what one can do with the content. My take is that content owners
> will place "requirements for usage" (restrictions) on the content they
> provide and their relationship with the consumer. And the content consumer
> will place "requirements for usage" on the content they obtain and their
> relationship with the owner. Where the "requirements for usage" are the
> same (compatible) then the content will flow - there's an agreement
between
> the consumer and owner.

"Equal rights" for content owners and creators doesn't make sense - because
their roles are inherently complementary.  I don't believe that this is what
RMS is proposing.  The process that you describe is a contract negotiation -
not a right.  Note however, that this contract negotiation would not be
possible unless the IP holder had certain rights that the content consumer
did not - namely the right to control copying and distribution.  There is no
complementary right on the part of the consumer.  Without copy right, the
content consumer could just get a copy of the digital good from someone
other
than the IP holder (for a presumably lower price).

Conclusion: You're trying to talk your way around the fundamental
disagreement between RMS and DRM.  It's not working - the two are
incompatible.

Regards,

..Pat