4 ms·
There are I think certain issues with this timeline, for starters I've yet to hear a counter proposal to drm to protect the artists work (the real issue is not
by 0dayz 3y ago
There are I think certain issues with this timeline, for starters I've yet to hear a counter proposal to drm to protect the artists work (the real issue is not even usually piracy but instead parasitic piracy and forgery, hence why copyright exist originally).
Instead you'll hear anecdotes or idealistic arguments for why an artist have to gamble with getting money for their work.
Similarly there are most likely valid reasons for certain other implementations on this list, to combat spam or bots.
In other words it's the unscrupulous and lazy uses of these tools that is I think the issue and also the fact that the passion and energy we project so often gets caught up in an absolutist crusades agenda instead of using said energy and passion to learn and listen to understand why these things develop so we can either politically change or create better alternatives.
Look at FSF as an example, it has lost a lot of relevance because it's been pushed and guided to only hiss and screech at anything that moves that isn't pure free software based on its own definition, what FSF could instead use to fund gnu projects that are better alternatives to the proprietary one (like gcc) or they could create a new middle of the road license that better competes with permissive licenses.
Another example is the right to repair lobbying, this is an excellent case of how you make actual change happen.
So I'm personally is not a fan of these actions and tools on the list but you have to understand the nuances of why they exist to properly work against it.
- brandonmenc 3y ago> I've yet to hear a counter proposal to drm to protect the artists work > Instead you'll hear anecdotes or idealistic arguments for why an artist have to gamble with getting money for their work. This is the current state for nearly every single artist even with DRM, because things like DRM seem to almost exclusively benefit a handful of people at the rest of the world’s expense.
- 0dayz 3y agoYes, but those are factors that does not involve piracy/forgery. My point is that no drm doesn't give any advantage to the artist from a monetary pov. Drm at least makes it less likely an artist will lose out on potential sales. Hence why I make the point that if we want a drm free world, we should focus on coming up with better alternatives to what we have.
- brandonmenc 3y ago> we should focus on coming up with better alternatives to what we have Agree. But the best alternative might actually be one where artists (Disney included) can’t “own” their art and where you can’t make money selling copies of digital files.
- 0dayz 3y agoI don't think so, it's too idealistic in todays world, even if we eliminate all form of material capital - art I think will only increase in value as it will become more valuable and competitive for us. I think a better solution as of right now is a redefinition of copyright, that copyright is handled primary by a agency like the Copyright Office that deals with registration and licensing of said copyright work. And copyright itself would be granted to the individuals who created said creative work (we would probably need to make clear distinctions between say creative art and more "logical" things like code) and they would be payed loyalty for each type of license the copyright office would issue (license for private use, in a 1 time production, continuous and lifetime license). Companies could sponsor said creative work and get a free lifetime license. Obviously I'm not a lawyer but I believe something like this, where copyright is as rigid in protection towards the original creators and allows for a much more fluid exchange of information depending on circumstance is at least a step in the right direction.