3 ms·
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 a
by __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 agoBy 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).