8 ms·
This is why I break DRM when I can, treating its presence as advisory at best. From a balancing test standpoint, if you want a technological solution to people
by ohithereyou 8y ago
This is why I break DRM when I can, treating its presence as advisory at best.
From a balancing test standpoint, if you want a technological solution to people copying your work then I think you should not be allowed to claim copyright protection of your work. Pick a legal or technical solution to unauthorized copying, not both.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- gerash 8y agoWhat kind of argument is that? Do you choose to either prosecute a burgler or put a lock on your door but not both? That said, the media industry as a whole has pushed more than what's necessary to protect its content (eg. DMCA, extending the copyright window) and a more fruitful course of action is to get Congress to change those laws.
- _mdpn 8y ago>Do you choose to either prosecute a burgler or put a lock on your door but not both? Physical property and intellectual property are not the same, so this analogy does not hold. Copyright is fundamentally a balancing act between these two opposing interests: - the right of a creator to make money of their creation for a limited time - the right of the public "to promote the progress of science and useful arts" There is no such duty for a physical property owner to allow others to access, view, or build upon his property. If you choose to use technological means to deny society the second interest above you should not also be allowed to claim the protection of the first interest above.