5 ms·

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 o

by acabal 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y ago
  [deleted]

by acabal 10y ago

6stringmerc 10y 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 10y 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 10y ago
[deleted]