In 2047, Frank was in prison, not for pirate reading, but for possessing a debugger.
The more reality seems to inch toward the society of that story, the more I'm convinced that we should choose the side of freedom, even if it means giving up a little temporary security (to paraphase that famous quote.)
The profits of few for the profits of many perhaps. Given that its thwarting tech, net profit is definitely not the trade-off though - personal liberty is.
Before software, a thing's representation and underlying mechanics were inseparable. It's weird to see producers greedy over their patterns now that it is (legally) possible to distinguish between the two..
Well, I'm guessing here -- but the first chair designer, when they distributed their chair, didn't include with their chair protective mechanisms to prevent users from viewing the chairs erognomics, or analyzing it with a microscope to understand its constituent parts.
Contrast this to DRM and substitute a decompiler or memory editor for a microscope.
Imagine a chair that you couldn't view but could sit in. That's what modern closed source software is, only the "you can't" is now legally enforceable thanks to the Internet.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html
In 2047, Frank was in prison, not for pirate reading, but for possessing a debugger.
The more reality seems to inch toward the society of that story, the more I'm convinced that we should choose the side of freedom, even if it means giving up a little temporary security (to paraphase that famous quote.)