大意是说：现在这帮人搞出了算法还要申请专利，别人如果要使用还要给钱，这种做法为我所鄙视。这和传统的数学界公开自己成果让他人自由享用的做法相差太远了。

Had to crank out a story on tight deadline about digital music rights in Europe: 2 states in EU ease sales of songs over Internet

The lesson is to find a good-enough approach to content protection that is easy, convenient and non-annoying to most people, and then accept that there will be some leakage. Most consumers see the value in paying for something of guaranteed quality and legality, as long as you don't treat them like potential criminals. And the minority of others, who are willing to take the risks and go to the trouble of finding the pirated versions? Well, they probably weren't your best market anyway.

"If this is the chief benefit of [the DMCA] in the post-Darknet world, it is important that policy-makers discuss the costs and benefits of this approach (I think it lends itself to anti-competitive cartel behavior), rather than continuing to believe that [DRM is] chiefly good for stopping digital infringements by individuals." (hyperlink, mine)

Unless all of the above are true, then the amount of DRM on a song is irrelevant to how hard or easy it is to get a copy without DRM on it. There are ways to reduce downloading -- for example, offering attractive services to high-downloader populations (like college kids). But DRM can't reduce the amount of downloading that people who want to download will undertake. Link (via Waxy)

how can you have a technology that restricts what users do (DRM) while allowing users to modify it, including in ways that remove the restrictions (open source), and what is the word "commons" doing there when Creative Commons licenses forbid the use of DRM in connection with the more than 17,000,000 Creative Commons-licensed works in circulation

Now software could enjoy the extraordinary protection of a patent, protection so powerful that Thomas Jefferson believed that it should be granted in only a few select cases.

he believes that the current system actually impedes the advance of software technology, at the same time that it works quite nicely to enrich patent holders. That's not what the framers of the Constitution wanted, he said.

而美国唱片工业协会（RIAA）作为日趋衰败的影视娱乐业代表，在今年的6月25日宣布将要对蓬勃发展的P2P（Peer to peer）文件共享用户提起诉讼，时间就在接下来的数周之内，截至目前已经有900多位人士收到了来自法院的传票，RIAA通过用户的ISP强制索取了用户的联系方式和IP地址，这一孤注一掷的行为使得大众极为愤怒，导致了网上网下嘘声一片。

The concept is simple: the music industry forms a collecting society, which then offers file-sharing music fans the opportunity to "get legit" in exchange for a reasonable regular payment, say $5 per month. So long as they pay, the fans are free to keep doing what they are going to do anyway—share the music they love using whatever software they like on whatever computer platform they prefer—without fear of lawsuits. The money collected gets divided among rights-holders based on the popularity of their music. In exchange, file-sharing music fans will be free to download whatever they like, using whatever software works best for them. The more people share, the more money goes to rights-holders. The more competition in applications, the more rapid the innovation and improvement. The more freedom to fans to publish what they care about, the deeper the catalog.

The deal is also a clear indication of Sony BMG's progressive position within the constantly evolving digital music world and shows that the major is at the forefront in identifying and supporting compelling new business models in the digital music market...."