2 ms·

What DRM does is make sure that any player asks for permission from the rights holder every time anything gets played. Do you seriously think that when suing th

What DRM does is make sure that any player asks for permission from the rights holder every time anything gets played. Do you seriously think that when suing the rights holder for defamation. I would not suddenly find that permission revoked ? (you sue the person who benefits from defaming you, not (necessarily) the one doing the actual act. For example, if CNN had paid some homeless man to say I beat him up, I would sue CNN, not the homeless man)

manigandham 10y ago
If it's evidence, then the court will force the rights holder to show the video. How is this different than any other protected-access evidence material?
- candiodari 10y ago
  You have a strange idea of how law works. In sufficiently high-profile cases you might be right. In general, no way. And that's ignoring that in criminal cases the court cannot even do that, under any circumstances. And of course, people cheat. Asking the defendant to show this material enables them to cheat. Where do people get this attitude that courts are either capable, or even interested in being the final arbiter of truth in society ? They are not, they have no interest in doing so. They exist to keep the peace, and to keep situations from spiraling out of control. They only enforce the law in a very limited fashion, and this whole absolutist faith in the justice system that so many people have is a fantasy. People do cheat in court. For two reasons : 1) hubris. Usually, if a case ends up in court it indicates there is more than a bit of ego involved on the defendant's side. 2) the punishments for lying to the court (esp. if it's manipulation along the lines of "we have 5 versions of the requested material, and yes we picked the least bad one), are far less than people think. > How is this different than any other protected-access evidence material? The complainant always, always, always, always brings the material and shows it to the court and the defendant. So it's very different, and very unlikely to work at all otherwise.

manigandham 10y ago

If it's evidence, then the court will force the rights holder to show the video. How is this different than any other protected-access evidence material?

candiodari 10y ago
You have a strange idea of how law works. In sufficiently high-profile cases you might be right. In general, no way. And that's ignoring that in criminal cases the court cannot even do that, under any circumstances. And of course, people cheat. Asking the defendant to show this material enables them to cheat. Where do people get this attitude that courts are either capable, or even interested in being the final arbiter of truth in society ? They are not, they have no interest in doing so. They exist to keep the peace, and to keep situations from spiraling out of control. They only enforce the law in a very limited fashion, and this whole absolutist faith in the justice system that so many people have is a fantasy. People do cheat in court. For two reasons : 1) hubris. Usually, if a case ends up in court it indicates there is more than a bit of ego involved on the defendant's side. 2) the punishments for lying to the court (esp. if it's manipulation along the lines of "we have 5 versions of the requested material, and yes we picked the least bad one), are far less than people think. > How is this different than any other protected-access evidence material? The complainant always, always, always, always brings the material and shows it to the court and the defendant. So it's very different, and very unlikely to work at all otherwise.