4 ms·

>But while it may not be as intuitive yet, DRM on digital media that you don’t own is also a major threat. Yeah, and what this article completely glosses over

>But while it may not be as intuitive yet, DRM on digital media that you don’t own is also a major threat. Yeah, and what this article completely glosses over is that as the creator of *.mp3s by 6StringMercenary, I own the digital media, by law[1], and I should have a say in how it's distributed, copied, or exploited, legally speaking. In a lot of cases, the music that's being "purchased" has never been owned by the person holding the LP, the cassette or the CD. They own a licensed copy. There's a fundamental, important difference. This article does absolutely nothing to rectify that the internet doesn't automatically own my creations as soon as I put them out there. I'm allowed control, legally, and I don't think it's fair - appropriate, moral, or ethical - to try and strip those rights away from me. Nowhere is this even touched upon as a parameter of this "NO DRM EVER" postulation. Just because the EFF thinks its business model of begging for money is a good one doesn't mean other pariticipants in society and commerce feel the model is appropriate for other endeavors. I get they have a mission, and at times we see eye to eye. Other times, like this one, I think they're woefully un-prepared for the implication of the position they espouse to take. [1] This does not include unlicensed remix projects, works-for-hire, or other nuanced undertakings outside the scope of this discussion

pjc50 11y ago
Do you believe that gives you the right to control every other computer and prevent the writing of entire categories of software?
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  Your question is a hyperbolic straw-man, which means I will obviously answer "No" because I'm specifically talking about one particular item. Do you fundamentally mis-understand my right to not have some teenager from The Bay simply grab my track from iTunes and use it as the soundtrack to their Kickstarter video simply because technology makes it possible?
  - pjc50 11y ago
    If I say yes .. what does it imply should be done about it?
acabal 11y ago
Copyright grants you some protection, but consumers also have rights. In your world where you have ultimate and complete control over the distribution and use of your work, my rights to fair use would be trampled, for example--and I don't like my rights being trampled any more than you like yours. It's not so black or white, and DRM, which prevents my own computer from doing as I've instructed, is most certainly on the worse extreme end of the spectrum.
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  Actually, your statement about "your right" to fair use being trampled is total garbage - I was referring to technology's ability for ease of mis-use and un-approved appropriation of one's work. As in, using a lifted track as a music backing for a video. Fair Use is a limited scope, and one of the most often abused and totally mis-understood flags waved by people who wrongly believe it washes away a host of rights by creators. Newsflash: It don't. Fundamentally speaking, YouTube's ContentID matching system is a form of DRM and I'd really, really like to see your argument of why it should not be allowed. You're right, it's not so black and white, and arguing with me about Fair Use will get you nowhere. I'm an advocate of Fair Use and the four factors. An educator by training and have spent time in the profession. You're being disingenuous bringing it up in a strictly commercial dialogue, and it just shows you have a perverted sense of priorities because you can't actually address the issue I brought at first: Can the EFF present a viable alternative before simply tearing down an imperfect system? So far, they can't, you can't, and I think it's going to take a lot more than just 10 years on the subject to get it figured out.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    The point is that DRM can't distinguish from "using a lifted track as a music backing for a video" and legitimate fair use. And I don't see how we're "in a strictly commercial dialogue", so your accusation is unjustified. As for a "viable alternative", the single most profitable online store sells DRM-free music. How can you argue that's not viable?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

pjc50 11y ago

Do you believe that gives you the right to control every other computer and prevent the writing of entire categories of software?

6stringmerc 11y ago
Your question is a hyperbolic straw-man, which means I will obviously answer "No" because I'm specifically talking about one particular item. Do you fundamentally mis-understand my right to not have some teenager from The Bay simply grab my track from iTunes and use it as the soundtrack to their Kickstarter video simply because technology makes it possible?
- pjc50 11y ago
  If I say yes .. what does it imply should be done about it?

acabal 11y ago

Copyright grants you some protection, but consumers also have rights. In your world where you have ultimate and complete control over the distribution and use of your work, my rights to fair use would be trampled, for example--and I don't like my rights being trampled any more than you like yours. It's not so black or white, and DRM, which prevents my own computer from doing as I've instructed, is most certainly on the worse extreme end of the spectrum.

6stringmerc 11y ago
Actually, your statement about "your right" to fair use being trampled is total garbage - I was referring to technology's ability for ease of mis-use and un-approved appropriation of one's work. As in, using a lifted track as a music backing for a video. Fair Use is a limited scope, and one of the most often abused and totally mis-understood flags waved by people who wrongly believe it washes away a host of rights by creators. Newsflash: It don't. Fundamentally speaking, YouTube's ContentID matching system is a form of DRM and I'd really, really like to see your argument of why it should not be allowed. You're right, it's not so black and white, and arguing with me about Fair Use will get you nowhere. I'm an advocate of Fair Use and the four factors. An educator by training and have spent time in the profession. You're being disingenuous bringing it up in a strictly commercial dialogue, and it just shows you have a perverted sense of priorities because you can't actually address the issue I brought at first: Can the EFF present a viable alternative before simply tearing down an imperfect system? So far, they can't, you can't, and I think it's going to take a lot more than just 10 years on the subject to get it figured out.
- icebraining 11y ago
  The point is that DRM can't distinguish from "using a lifted track as a music backing for a video" and legitimate fair use. And I don't see how we're "in a strictly commercial dialogue", so your accusation is unjustified. As for a "viable alternative", the single most profitable online store sells DRM-free music. How can you argue that's not viable?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]