4 ms·

Could you possibly not access the final resolution because it's DRM'd? Nah, just kidding ;) More substantively, thanks for the correction. BoingBoing often see

Could you possibly not access the final resolution because it's DRM'd? Nah, just kidding ;) More substantively, thanks for the correction. BoingBoing often seems to have a knee-jerk reaction to DRM.

Analemma_ 10y ago
> BoingBoing often seems to have a knee-jerk reaction to DRM. I'm really starting to get annoyed with BoingBoing, and Cory Doctorow in particular, for this and other reasons. It's sad, because he used to be a real icon of mine, and the first person I'd go to for commentary on laws affecting the digital space. But lately I've been noticing that he has this one preferred narrative-- the "hero hackers" versus the stupid-and/or-tyrannical government - and while that narrative is certainly common, Cory rushes to apply it to everything before he stops to examine the facts. See for instance the post-coup Turkey leaks (which he at least apologized for). It's particularly dangerous when it leads to uncritical worship of people like Jacob Appelbaum, who got several glowing tributes in BoingBoing over the years, and look how that turned out.
__jal 10y ago
I'm curious - where, exactly, do you see room for, uh, nuance? I can think of some extremely limited circumstances in which DRM may make sense. None of those apply to general-purpose computers in our homes, pockets or most businesses. As BoingBoing (certainly annoying in a number of ways) is a fairly typical blog format - mostly reacting to news - it seems inevitable that mentions of DRM are going to be about general-use DRM for, e.g., music, movies, etc., they aren't covering the extremely limited circumstances in which DRM makes sense (classified information, extremely locked-down corporate secrets, a couple others[1]), and precisely none of those stop copyright infringement, add value to the content or make paying customers happier. So it seems to me that what you see as knee-jerk is actually just the reaction of a person knowledgable on the topic to a stupid idea.
- infinite8s 10y ago
  By that I mean because of their knee-jerk reaction to DRM they've completely misrepresented what the ABA's actual position is - they do not want to DRM the law, but as rayiner outlines above the resolution calls for private publications incorporated into the law be available publicly (using DRM to assuage the rights-holders of the private publication).

Could you possibly not access the final resolution because it's DRM'd? Nah, just kidding ;) More substantively, thanks for the correction. BoingBoing often seems to have a knee-jerk reaction to DRM.

Analemma_ 10y ago

> BoingBoing often seems to have a knee-jerk reaction to DRM. I'm really starting to get annoyed with BoingBoing, and Cory Doctorow in particular, for this and other reasons. It's sad, because he used to be a real icon of mine, and the first person I'd go to for commentary on laws affecting the digital space. But lately I've been noticing that he has this one preferred narrative-- the "hero hackers" versus the stupid-and/or-tyrannical government - and while that narrative is certainly common, Cory rushes to apply it to everything before he stops to examine the facts. See for instance the post-coup Turkey leaks (which he at least apologized for). It's particularly dangerous when it leads to uncritical worship of people like Jacob Appelbaum, who got several glowing tributes in BoingBoing over the years, and look how that turned out.

__jal 10y ago

I'm curious - where, exactly, do you see room for, uh, nuance? I can think of some extremely limited circumstances in which DRM may make sense. None of those apply to general-purpose computers in our homes, pockets or most businesses. As BoingBoing (certainly annoying in a number of ways) is a fairly typical blog format - mostly reacting to news - it seems inevitable that mentions of DRM are going to be about general-use DRM for, e.g., music, movies, etc., they aren't covering the extremely limited circumstances in which DRM makes sense (classified information, extremely locked-down corporate secrets, a couple others[1]), and precisely none of those stop copyright infringement, add value to the content or make paying customers happier. So it seems to me that what you see as knee-jerk is actually just the reaction of a person knowledgable on the topic to a stupid idea.

infinite8s 10y ago
By that I mean because of their knee-jerk reaction to DRM they've completely misrepresented what the ABA's actual position is - they do not want to DRM the law, but as rayiner outlines above the resolution calls for private publications incorporated into the law be available publicly (using DRM to assuage the rights-holders of the private publication).