Intel to cut Linux out of the content market?!

[George Rogers]

Magnus Therning wrote:

>On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 08:05:35AM +0100, david wrote:
>  
>
>>On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 21:06 +0100, Magnus Therning wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 09:07:36AM +0100, david wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Think of it this way. You own a record label and a TV station. Piracy
>>>>is a problem. Along come M$ who say "use this codec on everything and
>>>>pay us per copy". Your content is safer because no one will be able to
>>>>share their content (not even with their own mp3/media players). Once
>>>>it takes off everyone will have to go out and rebuy all their
>>>>cd's/DVD's again.  Since Windows is on at least 90% of all world PC's
>>>>you daren't say no (if other companies go along and you don't you're
>>>>screwed, if you do and they don't, you get to advertise as "Windows
>>>>media compliant" and trumpet your anti-piracy stance). No one would
>>>>dare risk having their catalogue unavailable for the Windows platform
>>>>so they will comply.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>There is a healthy amount of fear of M$ in the content-provider-camp.
>>>The risk of your scenario playing out is not that big.
>>>      
>>>
>>Never-the-less, I think it would be naive not to suspect M$ of having
>>some "creative commercial strategies" in line for all things not M$
>>(Linux).
>>    
>>
>
>Absolutely. M$ simply can't be trusted to have FLOSS's best interest at
>heart. To be fair, I don't think _any_ company can be trusted with that.
>Not even the current big public supporters. Back-stabbing for a buck or
>two on the short term is in the nature of business (it seems).
>
>The most amazing thing is that these plans on DRM so clearly is
>equivalent to shooting yourself in the foot, and still companies push
>on. AFAICS people are used to technology allowing them to do _more_, not
>less. Expecting people to pay extra to _not_ be able to do something
>they've done before (legally or not) is not a sound business strategy.
>The only reason why people keep on pouring money into it is because
>there is a chance they strike gold, i.e. introduction of law that DRM is
>obligatory.
>
>The FLOSS community should continue doing what they do best. Make the
>computing power available to the owner of the computer, without
>limitations. The public may be stupid when acting together, but each
>individual, when acting alone, will spend money where it makes sense.
>DRM just doesn't make sense.
>
>/M
>
>  
>
right on