3 ms·

There are additional concerns associated with DRM that aren't revealed in the Hickson post - he speaks solely to the point of intention behind DRM. That begs th

by ABCLAW 9y ago

There are additional concerns associated with DRM that aren't revealed in the Hickson post - he speaks solely to the point of intention behind DRM. That begs the question: are there unintended victims of DRM? Yes, there are. Copyright law in most countries is the result of a long history of back-and-forth fighting between content creators and content consumers. Copyright infringement has a number of carve-outs that allow people to access works in specific circumstances. Canada's copyright act, for instance, has a section which enumerates a number of these. 29 - Exceptions 29 - Fair Dealing 29.21 - Non-commercial User-generated Content 29.22 - Reproduction for Private Purposes 29.23 - Fixing Signals and Recording Programs for Later Listening or Viewing 29.24 - Backup Copies 29.3 - Acts Undertaken without Motive of Gain 29.4 - Educational Institutions 30.1 - Libraries, Archives and Museums 30.3 - Machines Installed in Educational Institutions, Libraries, Archives and Museums 30.4 - Libraries, Archives and Museums in Educational Institutions 30.5 - Library and Archives of Canada 30.6 - Computer Programs 30.62 - Encryption Research 30.63 - Security 30.7 - Incidental Inclusion 30.71 - Temporary Reproductions for Technological Processes 30.8 - Ephemeral Recordings 31 - Retransmission 31.1 - Network Services 32 - Persons with Perceptual Disabilities 32.1 - Statutory Obligations 32.2 - Miscellaneous Before continuing with the discussion regarding how DRM is not an issue, take a look at the exceptions in your own country. These are not small losses, but they are a negative space. You won't know what you're missing because now it just plain won't happen.

sitkack 9y ago
> between content creators and content consumers I think of it as the triumvirate of creators, owners (distributors) and consumers. The owners argue as if they create, the do not, they simply own the rights to distribute and take money. The vast majority of creators are getting shafted as well.
- fauigerzigerk 9y ago
  >The owners argue as if they create, the do not, they simply own the rights to distribute and take money. No. Creators are the owners of whatever they create unless and until they sign those rights away. And they sign it away for something they get in return. It may well be that the media industry is structured in a way that puts creators at an unfair disadvantage in their dealings with media companies. If that is so then it should change. But using this issue to justify completely unrestricted copying of all content regardless of what creators want is a cop out. Invoking the big business bogeyman as the sole response to all copyright issues is unconvincing, insufficient and ineffective. What we need is a form of DRM that guarantees fair use rights and doesn't give draconian enforcement and surveillance powers to copyright owners.
  - rainbowmverse 9y ago
    This. I think people forget that just because big companies are pushing it doesn't mean everyone who creates and wants limited protections is working under a big company's banner. For me, streaming is a concession to people who prefer it to owning their music. I don't want them ripping a stream I made $0.004 on (at best) thinking it's a fair exchange of value. My focus is on Bandcamp and other stores that offer DRM-free downloads. Without some kind of friction for copying off streaming sites, if you could just click "download" and not pay me anything, I just wouldn't put my music there. My belief is someone who goes and pays a fair amount for the music understands it costs money to create, and will encourage the people they share it with under the CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 license to help me make more by buying their own copy (or a subscription).
    - sitkack 9y ago
      Which is why I buy my music from DRM free, full fidelity sites like Bandcamp.
  - sitkack 9y ago
    You are putting words in my mouth. I didn't use corporate rights holder argument to justify unrestricted copying. But DRM is enforce market and device segmentation, not to empower content _creators_.

by ABCLAW 9y ago

sitkack 9y ago

> between content creators and content consumers I think of it as the triumvirate of creators, owners (distributors) and consumers. The owners argue as if they create, the do not, they simply own the rights to distribute and take money. The vast majority of creators are getting shafted as well.

fauigerzigerk 9y ago
>The owners argue as if they create, the do not, they simply own the rights to distribute and take money. No. Creators are the owners of whatever they create unless and until they sign those rights away. And they sign it away for something they get in return. It may well be that the media industry is structured in a way that puts creators at an unfair disadvantage in their dealings with media companies. If that is so then it should change. But using this issue to justify completely unrestricted copying of all content regardless of what creators want is a cop out. Invoking the big business bogeyman as the sole response to all copyright issues is unconvincing, insufficient and ineffective. What we need is a form of DRM that guarantees fair use rights and doesn't give draconian enforcement and surveillance powers to copyright owners.
- rainbowmverse 9y ago
  This. I think people forget that just because big companies are pushing it doesn't mean everyone who creates and wants limited protections is working under a big company's banner. For me, streaming is a concession to people who prefer it to owning their music. I don't want them ripping a stream I made $0.004 on (at best) thinking it's a fair exchange of value. My focus is on Bandcamp and other stores that offer DRM-free downloads. Without some kind of friction for copying off streaming sites, if you could just click "download" and not pay me anything, I just wouldn't put my music there. My belief is someone who goes and pays a fair amount for the music understands it costs money to create, and will encourage the people they share it with under the CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 license to help me make more by buying their own copy (or a subscription).
  - sitkack 9y ago
    Which is why I buy my music from DRM free, full fidelity sites like Bandcamp.
- sitkack 9y ago
  You are putting words in my mouth. I didn't use corporate rights holder argument to justify unrestricted copying. But DRM is enforce market and device segmentation, not to empower content _creators_.