4 ms·

> Please go and argue that with the people who say DRM is evil I've been one of those people since about a decade before we called it "DRM". > in the real wor

by pdkl95 10y ago

> Please go and argue that with the people who say DRM is evil I've been one of those people since about a decade before we called it "DRM". > in the real world your positions are contradictory. Maybe try re-parsing my comment? Why would I argue about DRM, which I never mentioned? Users do have the right to use their own property (a General Purpose Computer[1]). Obviously, they would be liable if they made copies of copyright protected work that were sent to them from a website, but the fact that tools can be used for illegal purposes or to break contracts doesn't change the fact that you still have the right to use those tools. This is true even when the manufacturer olf a tool adds a feature you don't like. > Because in many cases the user has explicitly agreed certain terms for accessing that content? So what? If-and-only-if an actual contract was offered, understood by all parties, and agreed to, then you're free to find them the user in breech of contract. None of that is relevant to a tool having any particular feature. Even when a contract actually exists (a ToS is not a contract), the browser creators are an unrelated 3rd party.

Silhouette 10y ago
If-and-only-if an actual contract was offered, understood by all parties, and agreed to, then you're free to find them the user in breech of contract. Obviously. And just to be clear, this is the situation in many cases where people have been upset by these changes. None of that is relevant to a tool having any particular feature. Sure it is, if the tool is actively promoting something that will interfere with a lawful contract with another party. The law often recognises this problem explicitly, in many jurisdictions. (If you weren't aware of this, you might like to look up "tortious intereference" as a starting point.) Even when a contract actually exists (a ToS is not a contract), the browser creators are an unrelated 3rd party. They cease to be unrelated when their actions interfere with the first two parties in a way that harms one of them.

by pdkl95 10y ago

Silhouette 10y ago

If-and-only-if an actual contract was offered, understood by all parties, and agreed to, then you're free to find them the user in breech of contract. Obviously. And just to be clear, this is the situation in many cases where people have been upset by these changes. None of that is relevant to a tool having any particular feature. Sure it is, if the tool is actively promoting something that will interfere with a lawful contract with another party. The law often recognises this problem explicitly, in many jurisdictions. (If you weren't aware of this, you might like to look up "tortious intereference" as a starting point.) Even when a contract actually exists (a ToS is not a contract), the browser creators are an unrelated 3rd party. They cease to be unrelated when their actions interfere with the first two parties in a way that harms one of them.