3 ms·
I guess I was expecting something that explains your argument? I mean, unless I completely misunderstood you, you justified DRM by saying that it was ok becaus
by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
I guess I was expecting something that explains your argument?
I mean, unless I completely misunderstood you, you justified DRM by saying that it was ok because it doesn't get in your way ("it's transparent"). And now you are essentially saying that if it did get in your way, that would also be ok, because that's the purpose of DRM. Or in other words: Whether it does get in your way is completely irrelevant as to whether or not you think DRM is acceptable. So, what was your argument, then?
- Silhouette 9y agoI mean, unless I completely misunderstood you, you justified DRM by saying that it was ok because it doesn't get in your way ("it's transparent"). With the extra qualifier that what you're doing is actually permitted/legal, yes, that's essentially my point. That condition rather changes the meaning, though. Indeed, the difference it makes is essentially the point of having DRM in the first place.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago> With the extra qualifier that what you're doing is actually permitted/legal, yes, that's essentially my point. Now, the question is: What do you mean by "permitted/legal"? Permitted by general copyright law, or permitted by the part of the DMCA that specifically makes it illegal to circumvent or share information about how to circumvent DRM?