On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 10:41:52 -0800 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I will make a partial rebuttal to John Gilmore's article on the problems
> with content protection schemes.
>
> [..snip..]
>
> I understand that John and others worry that consumers will not actually
> be able to make choices and deci
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At 05:29 AM 1/22/01 GMT, David Wagner wrote:
>Free markets may be the best hope we've got (or they may not), but
>in any case, wouldn't it be fair to say that reliance on free markets
>to eliminate content protection is a little risky?
[...]
>Now su
Hal Finney writes:
>But when we deal with content protection which is provided on a
>competitive basis in the marketplace, it is another matter. In that
>case it is ultimately a question of satisfying the desires of the consumer
>which determines which products will succeed. [...]
>
>I understand
Excellent essay. I feel smarter for having read it.
I would say that I think that there are some breaks in the clouds
you describe so well.
1) If most of these copy-protection schemes are schemes, and not
laws, then the free market will route around them (The free market
is about as adaptable
I will make a partial rebuttal to John Gilmore's article on the problems
with content protection schemes.
I distinguish between schemes which are enforced by legislation such
as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), versus schemes which
rely on technological means and market competition to
John Gilmore wrote:
> Few or no manufacturers are willing to put ordinary
> digital audio recorders on the market -- you see lots of MP3 *players*
> but where are the stereo MP3 *recorders*? They've been chilled into
> nonexistence by the threat of lawsuits. The ones that claim to
> record, reco
Ron Rivest asked me:
> I think it would be illuminating to hear your views on the
> differences between the Intel/IBM content-protection proposals
> and existing practices for content protection in the TV
> scrambling domain. The devil's advocate position against your
> position would be: if the
John --
Great essay... thanks for replying at such length!
I'm going to decline your (perhaps rhetorical) invitation to provide
a devils-advocate counter-argument, because I'm not the right person to
do so; I am far too liberal in my own views to be a fair representative
of the "dark side". In
