4 ms·

Bullying in schools will happen anyway. Should we create a standard so that it's done properly, in a way everybody can reproduce ?

jacquesm 10y ago
That's a dumb analogy. Bullying is one-sidedly bad, hence there being a bully-victim relationship which is non-consensual. Content owners have - in principle, legally backed - the right to distribute their content in any way they see fit, and content consumers have the option to refuse that content if the format it is presented in is un-acceptable to them, this is a consensual producer-consumer relationship. If you feel 'bullied' to consume content with DRM the problem lies with you, you do not have an automatic right to content in a particular format. If you do not agree with that the solutions are to be found in the political realm, not in the technical realm.
- seejay 10y ago
  Does this mean it's ok to sell food with poison in them because people have the option to just simply not eat them? A figure like TBL openly supporting something like DRM sends a message, and it's not a good one.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    Another pointless analogy. Food with poison in it is illegal to sell. Supporting DRM sends a message that you do no agree with (and that I do not agree with), we can agree that it's not a good message but we are not without power in this: you and I can simply decide never to use that feature and not to support companies that use that feature. Copyright law is here to stay, rights holders will try to use technology to be able to squeeze every last $ out of their legally backed position and consumers have the collective powers to give those rights holders the finger. The fact that consumers as a group don't care enough is the main problem, see also: privacy and many other items like this.
    - sametmax 10y ago
      > Food with poison in it is illegal to sell Is is not. Only poisoned food that kills you quickly. You have plenty of legal food that harms your body or gives you diseases that are legal. We just call them junk food, alcohol, and other names because they are morally accepted. You accept DRM as fact of life. We don't. Because it isn't. It's just the next move pulled out by the majors to try to lock in the consumer. It brings zero benefits to society. No culture sharing restriction ever did, and all the stats in the world show that what they claim to protect against is a scam: majors are making more money that ever. > The fact that consumers as a group don't care enough is the main problem It can be said about any problem in society. Health, education, whatever. Regulations are not the solution, having people caring is. Still, we do have regulations.
      - jacquesm 10y ago
        Idealism is not going to get you very far in the marketplace. Accepting reality as it is and your place and power within that reality is key to both not feeling continuously frustrated and actually achieving some measurable change. You are essentially trying to ignore the fact that the Berne convention exists and that it (and not ideals) govern the position of rights holders. TBL is a pragmatist, first and foremost, that is why we have the WWW, not because he is an idealist who has forsaken his idealism. As such, his benefits to society are such that few people can claim to have changed the course of history to such an extent, if you wish to argue that DRM is not a 'fact of life' then you are out of touch with life. Major rights holders 'making more money that [sic] ever' is not automatic, they require our cooperation and consent. And that consent and cooperation are ours to withdraw. Any other changes are political and likely an uphill battle.
        sametmax 10y ago
        While I agree with your conclusions, I nevertheless don't think we should endorse a bad status quo. When Firefox came around (as Phoenix), it didn't endorse ActiveX, making a lot of sites unusable. It chose fair standards. What would have happened if they decided that they were too small and that Microsoft was so big that ActiveX would be inevitable anyway ? Note that eventually the DRM won't affect me. I'm tech saavy enough, so I will always find ways to get around them. I think they arm society as a whole, and that you should say no. I had an interview proposal with google some years ago. I refused politely. Google is inevitable, I still do have a few gmail addresses and use the SE. And it pays well. And their projects are cool. But I said no because I believe I should not be part of it. I'm doing my part. You don't get a democracy if you are not doing your part. Even if it means you will loose. Strategic vote is just promoting immobility. I'm all for pragmatism, but it has to be used in conjunction with bigger goals. Now you don't have to be perfect, I'm certainly not, but I still think that M. Lee decision sent the wrong message.
- syshum 10y ago
  >>Content owners have - in principle, legally backed - the right to distribute their content in any way they see fit, and content consumers have the option to refuse that content if the format it is presented in is un-acceptable to them, this is a consensual producer-consumer relationship. you are giving content "owners" (and I use that term losely, because legally they are Copyright Holders not owners, copyright is not property) many more rights that are simply not granted by copyright law. DRM is used in way to massively exceed the authority granted to creators by copyright, they abuse DRM and you claim the rest of society must just "take it" because "that's the market" Well there is no "market forces" when it comes to content because the government grants upon a person a monopoly over a copyrighted work, this exhausts many market forces. Sure you can claim a general market of "Movies" but due to the nature of the product these are not interchangeable widgets that normally constitute a market. >If you feel 'bullied' to consume content with DRM the problem lies with you The "being bullied" is a weak argument, i will give you that, but what about platform or time shifters. Should the MPAA be able disable my bluray player with a code on all new bluray discs? Should MPAA be able to tell me which HDMI cable I must buy and which monitor on my PC is acceptable? Should the MPAA be able to force me to use Chrome instead of Midori. If I buy content today, that can play on Firefox, but then next year google revokes the Widvine license firefox uses, it is acceptable that now the content I paid for is unusable by me?
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    Don't buy blueray discs and don't use Midori, don't use any content at all that is DRM encumbered. Yes, that will limit your choice but so what, if enough people do it the coin will drop. That's my solution to this whole DRM issue and I've yet to find a 'must-see' thing that was DRM encumbered. Copyright law gives rights-holders all kinds of options, and digital tools have given them options to make it harder to do some things that are not per-se violations of the law but that are also not explicitly granted as rights. And that's a huge difference from a legal perspective.
    - seejay 10y ago
      What you don't realize is that the solution you suggest won't work if famous people like TBL publicly support DRM. People wouldn't care about your opinions much, some would even call them dumb just like you call others opinions dumb. But when a respectable person like TBL says something people tend to take his words seriously. This is why people were worried about what TBL did. A very few would have cared if you or I did such a thing.

jacquesm 10y ago

That's a dumb analogy. Bullying is one-sidedly bad, hence there being a bully-victim relationship which is non-consensual. Content owners have - in principle, legally backed - the right to distribute their content in any way they see fit, and content consumers have the option to refuse that content if the format it is presented in is un-acceptable to them, this is a consensual producer-consumer relationship. If you feel 'bullied' to consume content with DRM the problem lies with you, you do not have an automatic right to content in a particular format. If you do not agree with that the solutions are to be found in the political realm, not in the technical realm.

seejay 10y ago
Does this mean it's ok to sell food with poison in them because people have the option to just simply not eat them? A figure like TBL openly supporting something like DRM sends a message, and it's not a good one.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Another pointless analogy. Food with poison in it is illegal to sell. Supporting DRM sends a message that you do no agree with (and that I do not agree with), we can agree that it's not a good message but we are not without power in this: you and I can simply decide never to use that feature and not to support companies that use that feature. Copyright law is here to stay, rights holders will try to use technology to be able to squeeze every last $ out of their legally backed position and consumers have the collective powers to give those rights holders the finger. The fact that consumers as a group don't care enough is the main problem, see also: privacy and many other items like this.
  - sametmax 10y ago
    > Food with poison in it is illegal to sell Is is not. Only poisoned food that kills you quickly. You have plenty of legal food that harms your body or gives you diseases that are legal. We just call them junk food, alcohol, and other names because they are morally accepted. You accept DRM as fact of life. We don't. Because it isn't. It's just the next move pulled out by the majors to try to lock in the consumer. It brings zero benefits to society. No culture sharing restriction ever did, and all the stats in the world show that what they claim to protect against is a scam: majors are making more money that ever. > The fact that consumers as a group don't care enough is the main problem It can be said about any problem in society. Health, education, whatever. Regulations are not the solution, having people caring is. Still, we do have regulations.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      Idealism is not going to get you very far in the marketplace. Accepting reality as it is and your place and power within that reality is key to both not feeling continuously frustrated and actually achieving some measurable change. You are essentially trying to ignore the fact that the Berne convention exists and that it (and not ideals) govern the position of rights holders. TBL is a pragmatist, first and foremost, that is why we have the WWW, not because he is an idealist who has forsaken his idealism. As such, his benefits to society are such that few people can claim to have changed the course of history to such an extent, if you wish to argue that DRM is not a 'fact of life' then you are out of touch with life. Major rights holders 'making more money that [sic] ever' is not automatic, they require our cooperation and consent. And that consent and cooperation are ours to withdraw. Any other changes are political and likely an uphill battle.
      - sametmax 10y ago
        While I agree with your conclusions, I nevertheless don't think we should endorse a bad status quo. When Firefox came around (as Phoenix), it didn't endorse ActiveX, making a lot of sites unusable. It chose fair standards. What would have happened if they decided that they were too small and that Microsoft was so big that ActiveX would be inevitable anyway ? Note that eventually the DRM won't affect me. I'm tech saavy enough, so I will always find ways to get around them. I think they arm society as a whole, and that you should say no. I had an interview proposal with google some years ago. I refused politely. Google is inevitable, I still do have a few gmail addresses and use the SE. And it pays well. And their projects are cool. But I said no because I believe I should not be part of it. I'm doing my part. You don't get a democracy if you are not doing your part. Even if it means you will loose. Strategic vote is just promoting immobility. I'm all for pragmatism, but it has to be used in conjunction with bigger goals. Now you don't have to be perfect, I'm certainly not, but I still think that M. Lee decision sent the wrong message.
syshum 10y ago
>>Content owners have - in principle, legally backed - the right to distribute their content in any way they see fit, and content consumers have the option to refuse that content if the format it is presented in is un-acceptable to them, this is a consensual producer-consumer relationship. you are giving content "owners" (and I use that term losely, because legally they are Copyright Holders not owners, copyright is not property) many more rights that are simply not granted by copyright law. DRM is used in way to massively exceed the authority granted to creators by copyright, they abuse DRM and you claim the rest of society must just "take it" because "that's the market" Well there is no "market forces" when it comes to content because the government grants upon a person a monopoly over a copyrighted work, this exhausts many market forces. Sure you can claim a general market of "Movies" but due to the nature of the product these are not interchangeable widgets that normally constitute a market. >If you feel 'bullied' to consume content with DRM the problem lies with you The "being bullied" is a weak argument, i will give you that, but what about platform or time shifters. Should the MPAA be able disable my bluray player with a code on all new bluray discs? Should MPAA be able to tell me which HDMI cable I must buy and which monitor on my PC is acceptable? Should the MPAA be able to force me to use Chrome instead of Midori. If I buy content today, that can play on Firefox, but then next year google revokes the Widvine license firefox uses, it is acceptable that now the content I paid for is unusable by me?
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Don't buy blueray discs and don't use Midori, don't use any content at all that is DRM encumbered. Yes, that will limit your choice but so what, if enough people do it the coin will drop. That's my solution to this whole DRM issue and I've yet to find a 'must-see' thing that was DRM encumbered. Copyright law gives rights-holders all kinds of options, and digital tools have given them options to make it harder to do some things that are not per-se violations of the law but that are also not explicitly granted as rights. And that's a huge difference from a legal perspective.
  - seejay 10y ago
    What you don't realize is that the solution you suggest won't work if famous people like TBL publicly support DRM. People wouldn't care about your opinions much, some would even call them dumb just like you call others opinions dumb. But when a respectable person like TBL says something people tend to take his words seriously. This is why people were worried about what TBL did. A very few would have cared if you or I did such a thing.