Subject: Re: DRM-incompatible licenses
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <>
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 22:38:03 +0900

>>>>> "Norbert" == Norbert Bollow <> writes:

    Norbert> I think that there's nothing wrong with implementing
    Norbert> "advisory DRM"

I think we should avoid use of such terms.  DRM is a term denoting a
*legal* mechanism for enforcement of restrictions.  If you don't
believe that restrictions on distribution should be enforced, then
it's best to use an alternative name for what you think is reasonable.

My technical problems with the anti-DRM clauses I know of is that (a)
they are obviously negligible incentive compared to the large gains
from effective DRM, and (b) they preclude use of the law to enhance
privacy protection by software under an anti-DRM license.  For an
analogy, look up the history of the anti-trust ("anti-monopoly" in
most countries) acts in the U.S.---you will discover that they got
through because lobbyists realized that they would be quite effective
against *labor unions*.  That later got fixed---unions have a
legislative exception---although the anti-trust laws still not as
effective against monopolies as most people would like.

Graduate School of Systems and Information Engineering   University of Tsukuba        Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
        Economics of Information Communication and Computation Systems
          Experimental Economics, Microeconomic Theory, Game Theory