[H]omer <spam@xxxxxxx> espoused:
> Verily I say unto thee, that scolford@xxxxxxxxx spake thusly:
>> On Feb 10, 2:04 pm, "DFS" <nospam@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>> demand-everything-be-free-but-refuse-to-pay-for-a-damn-thing
>
> I'm sick to death of you repeating that stupid bloody lie, DooFuS.
>
> *Freedom* has *nothing* to do with *paying*.
>
> Got it, you ridiculous; brain-dead moron?
>
> I am, and always have been, more than happy to remunerate people for
> their work, just as I expected to be for my official work. That has
> bugger-all to do with open access or licensing.
>
> As for public libraries, AFAIK they are /paid/ for with taxpayers'
> money, which makes restricted access all the more condemnable IMO, since
> /taxpayers/ who refuse to use Microsoft's slop will be denied access to
> a service that /they/ contribute towards financially. IOW they /already/
> pay, but get less than others because they're not in bed with the Vole.
>
>> Oh, DFS. Believe it or not, I truly mean every word in that statement
>> and I don't want to tell off the Anti-DRMers.
>
> It's easy to spin this as an Anti-DRM crusade, and paint those who
> oppose DRM as loony-bins who want to "steal" other's work, but this is
> not about /theft/, it's about giving taxpayers ... *all* your taxpayers
> ... what they *paid* for. It's about open access to /everyone/ who is
> entitled to it, which AFAICT is everyone in the Boston municipal area at
> least ... *including* those who do not wish to support the Microsoft Mafia.
>
> Personally I don't care /what/ solution you use, provided it is
> interoperable.
>
>> It's interesting because this one service is causing so many people
>> to demand things that are not part of our mission. (Our mission is to
>> bring content to the people of the Commonwealth and the City, not to
>> redesign the whole publishing industry.)
>
> Currently your mission seems to be discrimination by withholding
> services from those who pay (tax) for them, simply because they refuse
> to financially support a third-party enterprise.
>
>> I've had some good initial contacts with the Defective By Design
>> folks and hope to make some headway that will benefit us both. We'd
>> *love* to offer DRM-free downloads, but they simply aren't available
>> for the material that patrons want. Can anyone tell me where I can
>> legally obtain a download of Stephen King's latest audio book without
>> DRM? And one that can be *loaned* to people? See what I mean?
>
> Please answer these simple questions:
>
> . What form of DRM do you use to "protect" the physical books that you
> lend every day, to prevent their contents being scanned or manually
> copied down? How do your "content providers" rationalise the hypocrisy
> of insisting on DRM for content that is already published en clair in
> other forms (books)?
>
> . How sure are you that the DRM system you have in place even works?
> Most DRM schemes that I'm aware of have *already* been broken (e.g
> FairUse4WM), in which case you are wasting your time, and only
> punishing those with good intentions, rather than those who /wish/ to
> violate copyrights, and already have the technical means to do so.
>
> . How can you justify withholding services based on library members'
> choice of operating system. Does the Boston Public Library condone
> discriminatory policies in general? Will those who do not use
> Microsoft Windows be entitles to a partial tax rebate in compensation
> for withheld services?
>
Bear in mind, Homer, that you are likely to be communicating with
the person who made this appalling decision, and has now to try
to defend it in order to keep his job.
You're quite right, of course, the excuses provided are appalling, and
the fact that he would align himself with DFS really does show that he's
in a panic, and looking for support for his huge mistake anywhere he can
find it, including Microsoft trolls in a linux group.
There is no excuse for this act in Boston, any more than there was at
the BBC.
Furthermore, as the record companies are all busily dumping DRM, even
the DRM argument is looking very weak indeed.
I suspect that this chap doesn't even realise that there are
cross-platform DRM solutions, but, if he's reading, he might now be
beginning to realise the magnitude of his error. I hope his CV is up to
date, he's likely to be needing it.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
|
|
