3 ms·

That's like saying that putting locks on your house should exempt you from suing someone for stealing from you. Look, there's a lot of problems with how both o

by vkou 4y ago

That's like saying that putting locks on your house should exempt you from suing someone for stealing from you. Look, there's a lot of problems with how both of these things work today, but that seems entirely nonsensical to me.

pbhjpbhj 4y ago
The copyright deal is, we the people will give you exclusive rights for a limited time, in return the work will then enter the public domain for all to use. If at the start of the deal you ensure your work cannot fulfill the requirements of that deal, eg use DRM, then you do not enter into that deal as you have already refused it by not fulfilling your end. In your analogy, you're putting locks on a house, but you were only allowed to rent the house under the agreement that you wouldn't leave it locked up. and you didn't leave a key with anyone or do anything to make sure the house was unlockable. In fact the locks are booby traps that will destroy the house when your rental period is up, robbing those who would otherwise occupy the house of every having that opportunity ... yes, it's a protracted analogy because it sucks and these are different concepts.
NoMoreNicksLeft 4y ago
All "copyrighted" works belong to the public domain. We're only giving them a time-limited lease to the stuff. If you leased land to someone for 75 years, and at the end of the lease term they started burying highly radioactive waste on the property to prevent you from taking it back for the next 330,000 years... Well, you'd just refuse to lease it to people like that, wouldn't you? We should demand that our government refuse to give those leases out if they do it. DRM or copyright, not both. DRM prevents the work from ever going back to the public domain. Your arguments are ill-considered, in fact, you don't even prevent one. Just knee-jerk reactionary "nyuh uh!".

3 ms·

That's like saying that putting locks on your house should exempt you from suing someone for stealing from you. Look, there's a lot of problems with how both o

by vkou 4y ago

pbhjpbhj 4y ago
The copyright deal is, we the people will give you exclusive rights for a limited time, in return the work will then enter the public domain for all to use. If at the start of the deal you ensure your work cannot fulfill the requirements of that deal, eg use DRM, then you do not enter into that deal as you have already refused it by not fulfilling your end. In your analogy, you're putting locks on a house, but you were only allowed to rent the house under the agreement that you wouldn't leave it locked up. and you didn't leave a key with anyone or do anything to make sure the house was unlockable. In fact the locks are booby traps that will destroy the house when your rental period is up, robbing those who would otherwise occupy the house of every having that opportunity ... yes, it's a protracted analogy because it sucks and these are different concepts.
NoMoreNicksLeft 4y ago
All "copyrighted" works belong to the public domain. We're only giving them a time-limited lease to the stuff. If you leased land to someone for 75 years, and at the end of the lease term they started burying highly radioactive waste on the property to prevent you from taking it back for the next 330,000 years... Well, you'd just refuse to lease it to people like that, wouldn't you? We should demand that our government refuse to give those leases out if they do it. DRM or copyright, not both. DRM prevents the work from ever going back to the public domain. Your arguments are ill-considered, in fact, you don't even prevent one. Just knee-jerk reactionary "nyuh uh!".