4 ms·
>they say it will have DRM I confused what possible definition of 'Digital Rights Management' could entail 'anyone can freely rip your files.'
by RC_ITR 4y ago
>they say it will have DRM
I confused what possible definition of 'Digital Rights Management' could entail 'anyone can freely rip your files.'
- cool_dude85 4y agoHow about 'nobody can freely rip my subscriber only files' but free files are free to be ripped? Seems like a reasonable interpretation to me. Even more reasonably, I might expect that I can freely rip my files regardless of DRM.
- BlueTemplar 4y agoThe original file creator doesn't have an issue with DRM anyway, since he has the original file. The whole point of DRM is to try to restrict non-creators from making copies. (An alternative that I might find acceptable is DRM that is removed after a short amount of time, but it would require laws with heavy fines on the violator companies that would "forget" to leave it up, and also not plan for cases like bankruptcy. )
- RC_ITR 4y agoTo be clear - the issue is that you can't rip them from the public facing URL, not that a logged in creator can't download their own files...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- friend_and_foe 4y agoWhat about "I can freely rip my own files"? Does the definition preclude that also?
- RC_ITR 4y agoWhere does the article mention that? The entire discussion is around a 3rd party using public-facing URLs, not logged in users.