Posted by G.T. on 02/21/07 21:05

"Jochem Huhmann" <joh@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:m2abz7w9ne.fsf@marvin.revier.com...
> "G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com> writes:
>
>> So you'd be happier getting all your news from one source? Having no
>> options on banking? Paying outrageous fees at a single ticket
>> company?
>
> While I think that options and competion are good things, companies
> trying to lock in and suck out customers aren't neccessarily better.
> There *have* to be open standards and free choice (without lock-in) to
> create a transparent market. *We* (as citizens) have to make sure that
> there are limits and regulations to make sure that the market is fair.
> That's what laws are for and what politicians are paid for. That we (as
> customers) have to wait for the fscking music industry to make up their
> mind is a shame. The Internet and the Web weren't products. They were
> standards, with standard implementations, which were free to use and to
> build upon. The same companies which whine about not being able to
> "distribute unprotected content" are happily using standards and
> protocols and software that would ruin them if they were patented and
> needed a license to use them. And without these open procotols there
> would've never been a Internet at all.
>
> There are times I think that fair and just capitalism is as achievable
> as fair and just socialism. If you have reasonable and honest customers,
> workers, executives and politicians, things may work out fine in both
> cases. If not, you'll be fscked both ways. Which actually is a fine
> enlightment, because it allows to just look at what works and what not.
> And DRM does not work.
>

Nothing to argue with there. Your first sentence is a little confusing,
though. The way I see it lock in is not competition, lock in tries to
reduce competition.

Greg
--
The ticketbastard Tax Tracker:
http://www.ticketmastersucks.org/tracker.html

[Back to original message]