4 ms·

> Again, Metallica did not rootkit anybody. And, to use a facile and touchy example, Donald Trump didn't revolt at the capital. But fine: > what is a very re

> Again, Metallica did not rootkit anybody. And, to use a facile and touchy example, Donald Trump didn't revolt at the capital. But fine: > what is a very real dichotomy Help me out here - why are the only two choices: 1. rampant piracy 2. automated systems that allow corporations to trivially take down content, legitimate or not, with generally no recourse unless you get e.g. Google's attention on twitter? Why are people so convinced there's no middle ground here, and that everybody with an opinion that #2 is perhaps a little problematic must be totally pro-piracy? > Properly implemented DRM is fine! Perhaps the argument is that we don't yet live in the land of properly implemented IP controls. I didn't realize we'd reached utopia; I'll go back to buying ebooks and reusing them across whatever devices I please. Spotify and Netflix are great examples of exactly proof that a convenient form of consumption will get paying customers, and I was certainly more willing to buy MP3s when they stopped coming with DRM attached to them. The fact these work does not somehow render the point that, well, the original article, occurs, as a result of these things, and that it's ironic that it happens to Metallica, who would probably prior to this have been pleased that an automated system takes down anything approximating Enter Sandman.

Hydraulix989 6y ago
You originally stated that Metallica rootkitted people. That's a ridiculous wholly non-analogous example. Trump clearly incited the riot, there were recordings as proof, and resultant court cases. I assume (and hope) that this is also your understanding of what actually happened with Trump. In this case, it doesn't even come close. For example, Metallica wasn't even signed on the record label that did the rootkit. Metallica had literally no involvement any hacking of their fans' operating systems. You're stating a different dichotomy now. The original one you proposed was whether it is possible to be against online piracy without attacking consumers' data. I'm happy to entertain your other more reasonable arguments that you have later written as follow-ups, but your original post directly accusing Metallica of rootkits is just flat-out untrue.
- blandflakes 6y ago
  > That's a ridiculous wholly non-analogous example. Trump clearly incited the riot, there were recordings as proof, and resultant court cases. In this case, it doesn't even come close. I'm just making the point that Metallica not rootkitting anybody is in no way an argument that they are neither in favor of that drastic a measure nor that they did not encourage or provide justification for the recording industry to do the same. > You originally stated that Metallica rootkitted people. No, I made a leap from "lobbying for and publicly whining about piracy" to "efforts to curb that include rootkits and other less horrible inconveniences". I'm sorry if that leap felt too extreme, next time I'll make the pit stops along the lines of "things don't work offline" and "things disappear without you knowing" and "things using otherwise standard formats aren't readable on your non-blessed device". Whether Metallica directly rootkitted anything (which was never stated, it was just juxtaposed as an example of how this POV can hurt consumers in the end) doesn't really matter. Let's pretend that nobody ever rootkitted anybody. How is this dichotomy different? My original, according to you: > The original one you proposed was whether it is possible to be against online piracy without attacking consumers' data. My recent restating: > Help me out here - why are the only two choices: 1. rampant piracy 2. automated systems that allow corporations to trivially take down content, legitimate or not, with generally no recourse unless you get e.g. Google's attention on twitter? Hm. Option 1 is online piracy, 2 is attacking consumers' data. Sounds pretty similar? Or do I need to be really literal and exact and use the same words?
  - Hydraulix989 6y ago
    Again, I agree with these newly changed words.
lawnchair_larry 6y ago
Your arguments on this whole thing are completely nonsensical. None of what you’re claiming to be mad about has anything to do with Metallica. You’re basically complaining that you can’t freely use the work of artists without compensating them.
- blandflakes 6y ago
  I'm not, and I'm sorry that you struggle to see anything but black and white. I'm not complaining about paying artists. The ability to pay them is 100% unrelated to the complaint that enforcement technologies can harm the consumer. I'm sorry that you're not seeing that, but I'm not sure how much more explaining can possibly help here. If you can find a sentence from me that, anywhere, says or even implies "I shouldn't have to pay for music/tv/ebooks", I'll be shocked. I'm glad you came back after your nonsensical police parallel to make this comment, though.

Hydraulix989 6y ago

You originally stated that Metallica rootkitted people. That's a ridiculous wholly non-analogous example. Trump clearly incited the riot, there were recordings as proof, and resultant court cases. I assume (and hope) that this is also your understanding of what actually happened with Trump. In this case, it doesn't even come close. For example, Metallica wasn't even signed on the record label that did the rootkit. Metallica had literally no involvement any hacking of their fans' operating systems. You're stating a different dichotomy now. The original one you proposed was whether it is possible to be against online piracy without attacking consumers' data. I'm happy to entertain your other more reasonable arguments that you have later written as follow-ups, but your original post directly accusing Metallica of rootkits is just flat-out untrue.

blandflakes 6y ago
> That's a ridiculous wholly non-analogous example. Trump clearly incited the riot, there were recordings as proof, and resultant court cases. In this case, it doesn't even come close. I'm just making the point that Metallica not rootkitting anybody is in no way an argument that they are neither in favor of that drastic a measure nor that they did not encourage or provide justification for the recording industry to do the same. > You originally stated that Metallica rootkitted people. No, I made a leap from "lobbying for and publicly whining about piracy" to "efforts to curb that include rootkits and other less horrible inconveniences". I'm sorry if that leap felt too extreme, next time I'll make the pit stops along the lines of "things don't work offline" and "things disappear without you knowing" and "things using otherwise standard formats aren't readable on your non-blessed device". Whether Metallica directly rootkitted anything (which was never stated, it was just juxtaposed as an example of how this POV can hurt consumers in the end) doesn't really matter. Let's pretend that nobody ever rootkitted anybody. How is this dichotomy different? My original, according to you: > The original one you proposed was whether it is possible to be against online piracy without attacking consumers' data. My recent restating: > Help me out here - why are the only two choices: 1. rampant piracy 2. automated systems that allow corporations to trivially take down content, legitimate or not, with generally no recourse unless you get e.g. Google's attention on twitter? Hm. Option 1 is online piracy, 2 is attacking consumers' data. Sounds pretty similar? Or do I need to be really literal and exact and use the same words?
- Hydraulix989 6y ago
  Again, I agree with these newly changed words.

lawnchair_larry 6y ago

Your arguments on this whole thing are completely nonsensical. None of what you’re claiming to be mad about has anything to do with Metallica. You’re basically complaining that you can’t freely use the work of artists without compensating them.

blandflakes 6y ago
I'm not, and I'm sorry that you struggle to see anything but black and white. I'm not complaining about paying artists. The ability to pay them is 100% unrelated to the complaint that enforcement technologies can harm the consumer. I'm sorry that you're not seeing that, but I'm not sure how much more explaining can possibly help here. If you can find a sentence from me that, anywhere, says or even implies "I shouldn't have to pay for music/tv/ebooks", I'll be shocked. I'm glad you came back after your nonsensical police parallel to make this comment, though.