IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mmox] mmox Digest, Vol 1, Issue 111

"dyerbrookme@juno.com" <dyerbrookme@juno.com> Mon, 23 February 2009 16:46 UTC

Return-Path: <dyerbrookme@juno.com>
X-Original-To: mmox@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmox@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A371028C16A for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:46:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.346
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.346 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.252, BAYES_00=-2.599, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xW40JukVokRz for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:46:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from outbound-mail.vgs.untd.com (outbound-mail.vgs.untd.com [64.136.55.15]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 83FB63A698F for <mmox@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:46:29 -0800 (PST)
X-UOL-TAGLINE: true
Received: from outbound-bu1.vgs.untd.com (webmail09.vgs.untd.com [10.181.12.149]) by smtpout03.vgs.untd.com with SMTP id AABE4FWY7ALDGV52 for <mmox@ietf.org> (sender <dyerbrookme@juno.com>); Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:46:21 -0800 (PST)
X-UNTD-OriginStamp: ireJTaFtV8IZgEqY8qAucSk4DgBsdYkNpBySk9wLlpInLWdNSHlzIQ==
Received: (from dyerbrookme@juno.com) by webmail09.vgs.untd.com (jqueuemail) id N94PHK4E; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:45:43 PST
Received: from [68.161.198.3] by webmail09.vgs.untd.com with HTTP: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:44:23 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [68.161.198.3]
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: "dyerbrookme@juno.com" <dyerbrookme@juno.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:44:23 +0000
To: jesrad@gmail.com
X-Mailer: Webmail Version 4.0
Message-Id: <20090223.114423.5499.2@webmail09.vgs.untd.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-ContentStamp: 2:1:711688090
X-UNTD-Peer-Info: 10.181.12.149|webmail09.vgs.untd.com|outbound-bu1.vgs.untd.com|dyerbrookme@juno.com
Cc: mmox@ietf.org, dyerbrookme@juno.com
Subject: Re: [mmox] mmox Digest, Vol 1, Issue 111
X-BeenThere: mmox@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Massively Multi-participant Online Games and Applications <mmox.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox>, <mailto:mmox-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmox>
List-Post: <mailto:mmox@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmox-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox>, <mailto:mmox-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:46:30 -0000

>My model can coexist with copyright-based models, provided I can
opt my content out of any DRM system.

With a DRM system like c/m/t being conveyed, you check off c/m/t if you want full perms to be distributed *shrugs*. That's all. Transporting the metadata of c/m/t -- or no c/m/t and demanding a regime to implement it does not preclude you from "opting out" by...checking off c/m/t. Why would you think that the act of having to check off c/m/t to get full perms, so that others who *do not* want to check them off and wish to make a living not through consulting but by object sales would somehow preclude your full-perms distribution? Makes no sense, again, except as an ideological demand.

There has been no scientific, peer-reviewed study of whether the 8 generatives really made a living for anyone already funded; it's one of those anecdotal things that a few people spread the memes, and it becomes an urban legend.

____________________________________________________________
All is not lost! Click now for professional data recovery.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTLygKNVW1HREvNOugCwPyNMUs5PLdtGtWcrNSmwzGnPBZITpGTbdm/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email