5 ms·

Because there is no right or "fair share". And there lies the problem, I think. Or perhaps maybe I did not express myself precisely enough. So this is another

Because there is no right or "fair share". And there lies the problem, I think. Or perhaps maybe I did not express myself precisely enough. So this is another take. Everyone has right to ask and receive a compensation for their work. Nobody should be forced to work for unfair compensation. I do not know if this is written in your constitution, this is just something in what I believe. I believe that generally the justification for DRM arises from the second sentence. What I expressed was that if the measures used to safeguard this position interfere with other more important rights then we should value more important rights and accept that some work may not be created. We can not force somebody to work for free, but we can accept that some work will not be created. Creators have only the right to ask for money for their works, they have no right to compensation at all. Does this mean that if you do not accept what they ask for their work, you still will have the right to use their work?

syshum 10y ago
>>Everyone has right to ask and receive a compensation for their work. Nobody should be forced to work for unfair compensation Last I check no one is being forced to create movies, music, books, software, or any other creative works. I work in software development. I have had commercial projects fail miserably, I have spent 100's of hours on projects that have earned me $0, why because while I valued them clearly no one else saw enough value in them to provide me with money for them. I have no right to compensation for that labor. I only have the right to ask people to compensate me, if they choose not to then I miscalculated the market.
- falcolas 10y ago
  > Last I check no one is being forced to create movies, music, books, software, or any other creative works. No, most do it because they think they can make money off it. Movies are expensive to make, and without the expectation of making that money back (or more - its an investment), why would make the movie? Books can take years to write (cough, GRRM), and the authors are frequently paid up front for the book. Would GRRM still be writing ASOIF if he wasn't able to make a living off it? Perhaps, perhaps not. Paying him makes it a lot more likely.
  - wolfgke 10y ago
    > Would GRRM still be writing ASOIF if he wasn't able to make a living off it? Perhaps, perhaps not. Paying him makes it a lot more likely. But copyright and DRM is about forcing people to pay - this has nothing to do with being able to make a living or not.
    - falcolas 10y ago
      > But copyright [...] is about forcing people to pay Which, in my opinion, is not an unreasonable thing. If you want to consume the content, you pay the content creator in their currency of choice (be it github stars, their name immortalized in an attribution clause, or cash).
      - wolfgke 10y ago
        > If you want to consume the content, you pay the content creator in their currency of choice (be it github stars, their name immortalized in an attribution clause, or cash). I consider doing this as a gesture of politeness, but nothing that should be enforced by violence.
        falcolas 10y ago
        > I consider doing this as a gesture of politeness I disagree. The rights of a content creator are, after all, enshrined in the constitution. That's a bit more than "being polite". That said, the right of the public to have access after a defined period of time is also enshrined, so that does need to be taken into account. > nothing that should be enforced by violence Thats quite the jump - violence? I'm going to make the assumption that you're referring to the idea that no law should be made that you aren't willing to resort to violence to support. Even under that assumption, I am OK with this being the law of the land. I believe that a person has the right to demand compensation for access their work, regardless of the form that work takes.
        syshum 10y ago
- m_developer 10y ago
  But, if people keep using your software (or, for comparison, music), then there does seem to be value in it. Why then, shouldn't you be compensated for the work it took?
  - syshum 10y ago
    There are many forms of "value" outside that of currency. Further the sole reason they may use my software it because it is free, any attempt to even charge $1 for it exceeds the monetary value of the software.
    - saint_fiasco 10y ago
      I don't know why you are being downvoted. If you really are willing to change to a different software (or see/listen a different movie/music) just because you are not willing to pay a dollar, then the value of that software/song/movie really is lower than a dollar. How is that controversial?
  - Ace17 10y ago
    Because when this software/music, in its final form, only consist in pure information, it's nearly impossible to guarantee your compensation without giving companies the tools to interfer with essential freedoms.
- eveningcoffee 10y ago
  I welcome you to reread my comment. What I essentially said was that nobody should be forced to work for unfair compensation. If this compensation can not be reached, we should accept that there will be less work created, instead of enforcing this compensation at the expense of our other more important civil rights.
  - wolfgke 10y ago
    > What I essentially said was that nobody should be forced to work for unfair compensation. I'm not aware of any penal servitude in the United States.
    - pbtflakes 10y ago
      It's right there in the 13th Amendment. Just look at FPI/UNICOR, a government-owned corporation founded in order to exploit prison labor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Prison_Industries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Prison_Industries
    - pessimizer 10y ago
      Hence "we should accept that there will be less work created."
admax88q 10y ago
> Does this mean that if you do not accept what they ask for their work, you still will have the right to use their work? No

syshum 10y ago

>>Everyone has right to ask and receive a compensation for their work. Nobody should be forced to work for unfair compensation Last I check no one is being forced to create movies, music, books, software, or any other creative works. I work in software development. I have had commercial projects fail miserably, I have spent 100's of hours on projects that have earned me $0, why because while I valued them clearly no one else saw enough value in them to provide me with money for them. I have no right to compensation for that labor. I only have the right to ask people to compensate me, if they choose not to then I miscalculated the market.

falcolas 10y ago
> Last I check no one is being forced to create movies, music, books, software, or any other creative works. No, most do it because they think they can make money off it. Movies are expensive to make, and without the expectation of making that money back (or more - its an investment), why would make the movie? Books can take years to write (cough, GRRM), and the authors are frequently paid up front for the book. Would GRRM still be writing ASOIF if he wasn't able to make a living off it? Perhaps, perhaps not. Paying him makes it a lot more likely.
- wolfgke 10y ago
  > Would GRRM still be writing ASOIF if he wasn't able to make a living off it? Perhaps, perhaps not. Paying him makes it a lot more likely. But copyright and DRM is about forcing people to pay - this has nothing to do with being able to make a living or not.
  - falcolas 10y ago
    > But copyright [...] is about forcing people to pay Which, in my opinion, is not an unreasonable thing. If you want to consume the content, you pay the content creator in their currency of choice (be it github stars, their name immortalized in an attribution clause, or cash).
    - wolfgke 10y ago
      > If you want to consume the content, you pay the content creator in their currency of choice (be it github stars, their name immortalized in an attribution clause, or cash). I consider doing this as a gesture of politeness, but nothing that should be enforced by violence.
      - falcolas 10y ago
        > I consider doing this as a gesture of politeness I disagree. The rights of a content creator are, after all, enshrined in the constitution. That's a bit more than "being polite". That said, the right of the public to have access after a defined period of time is also enshrined, so that does need to be taken into account. > nothing that should be enforced by violence Thats quite the jump - violence? I'm going to make the assumption that you're referring to the idea that no law should be made that you aren't willing to resort to violence to support. Even under that assumption, I am OK with this being the law of the land. I believe that a person has the right to demand compensation for access their work, regardless of the form that work takes.
        syshum 10y ago
m_developer 10y ago
But, if people keep using your software (or, for comparison, music), then there does seem to be value in it. Why then, shouldn't you be compensated for the work it took?
- syshum 10y ago
  There are many forms of "value" outside that of currency. Further the sole reason they may use my software it because it is free, any attempt to even charge $1 for it exceeds the monetary value of the software.
  - saint_fiasco 10y ago
    I don't know why you are being downvoted. If you really are willing to change to a different software (or see/listen a different movie/music) just because you are not willing to pay a dollar, then the value of that software/song/movie really is lower than a dollar. How is that controversial?
- Ace17 10y ago
  Because when this software/music, in its final form, only consist in pure information, it's nearly impossible to guarantee your compensation without giving companies the tools to interfer with essential freedoms.
eveningcoffee 10y ago
I welcome you to reread my comment. What I essentially said was that nobody should be forced to work for unfair compensation. If this compensation can not be reached, we should accept that there will be less work created, instead of enforcing this compensation at the expense of our other more important civil rights.
- wolfgke 10y ago
  > What I essentially said was that nobody should be forced to work for unfair compensation. I'm not aware of any penal servitude in the United States.
  - pbtflakes 10y ago
    It's right there in the 13th Amendment. Just look at FPI/UNICOR, a government-owned corporation founded in order to exploit prison labor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Prison_Industries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Prison_Industries
  - pessimizer 10y ago
    Hence "we should accept that there will be less work created."

admax88q 10y ago

> Does this mean that if you do not accept what they ask for their work, you still will have the right to use their work? No