4 ms·

> act of consuming products outside of the framework that enabled the funding for creation of these products. Are you a corporate lawyer? Because this sentence

> act of consuming products outside of the framework that enabled the funding for creation of these products. Are you a corporate lawyer? Because this sentence really doesn't mean anything but can be made to mean a lot depending on the context you decide to frame it in. Regardless of that, it highlights the fact that you haven actually read the article itself. Which I highly suggest as it does a good job of pointing out a big issue with how that framework currently works towards consumers.

mrtksn 3y ago
This sentence addresses exactly the content of the article: The framework within stuff is funded, created and later compensated. The article is a ramble on the issues of implementation of the enforcement. Only if people would play along we wouldn't have ushers in the cinema, only if people would play along we wouldn't have cashiers but a box where people put the money in and take out the change. Implementation of DRM etc. is quite low quality and is prone to issues. So? Those unhappy should simply avoid content made with that business model and framework of tools enforcing it. The ad-supported model gained a lot of traction and people make a lot of DRM-free content that is distributed for free in exchange of editorial influence or distribution influence. Some even see great success in it, there are YouTube content producers who can afford to make content with considerable production value. If you like what you get stick with it, if you don't - don't. Produce the stuff the way you think should be produced and distribute it the way you think should be distributed, no one is forcing you to use DRM or whatever. That's just a tool that you might choose to use in hope that people will agree to pay you this way.
- creesch 3y ago
  So you are saying that you have no issue with a framework where people have put money towards material (funded it) but can at any future time be denied access to that content? Furthermore I still believe you haven't actually read the article. As you are heavily focused on what appears to be media content. Where the article touches on digital material in general like software. In general the article does a good job of highlighting an issue the sort of framework that is widely prevelant.
  - mrtksn 3y ago
    Sure, the current state does have issues. Also, I don't care much about that and since my solution to it is that don't purchase it if you don't like the rules. Personally, I'm more concerned on fair use and the impact on the society when a product(media or software) is withheld geographically or produced with agenda beyond collecting direct payments. The fair use is more interesting one, when a digital product is widely successful it does have cultural impact on the society and IMHO it should become public domain at some point because the society becomes like a minefield for the other creatives. I don't really care much about the tragedy of not being able to watch a movie years later after you paid as much as hamburger for it. It is not a real issue and you should have read the fineprint.
    - creesch 3y ago
      To me, the points you personally care about are very much related to the issues discussed in the article. Geographic restrictions are very much driven by the same motivators that result in DRM and revokable content You seek to make a distinction here that simply isn't there.

mrtksn 3y ago

This sentence addresses exactly the content of the article: The framework within stuff is funded, created and later compensated. The article is a ramble on the issues of implementation of the enforcement. Only if people would play along we wouldn't have ushers in the cinema, only if people would play along we wouldn't have cashiers but a box where people put the money in and take out the change. Implementation of DRM etc. is quite low quality and is prone to issues. So? Those unhappy should simply avoid content made with that business model and framework of tools enforcing it. The ad-supported model gained a lot of traction and people make a lot of DRM-free content that is distributed for free in exchange of editorial influence or distribution influence. Some even see great success in it, there are YouTube content producers who can afford to make content with considerable production value. If you like what you get stick with it, if you don't - don't. Produce the stuff the way you think should be produced and distribute it the way you think should be distributed, no one is forcing you to use DRM or whatever. That's just a tool that you might choose to use in hope that people will agree to pay you this way.

creesch 3y ago
So you are saying that you have no issue with a framework where people have put money towards material (funded it) but can at any future time be denied access to that content? Furthermore I still believe you haven't actually read the article. As you are heavily focused on what appears to be media content. Where the article touches on digital material in general like software. In general the article does a good job of highlighting an issue the sort of framework that is widely prevelant.
- mrtksn 3y ago
  Sure, the current state does have issues. Also, I don't care much about that and since my solution to it is that don't purchase it if you don't like the rules. Personally, I'm more concerned on fair use and the impact on the society when a product(media or software) is withheld geographically or produced with agenda beyond collecting direct payments. The fair use is more interesting one, when a digital product is widely successful it does have cultural impact on the society and IMHO it should become public domain at some point because the society becomes like a minefield for the other creatives. I don't really care much about the tragedy of not being able to watch a movie years later after you paid as much as hamburger for it. It is not a real issue and you should have read the fineprint.
  - creesch 3y ago
    To me, the points you personally care about are very much related to the issues discussed in the article. Geographic restrictions are very much driven by the same motivators that result in DRM and revokable content You seek to make a distinction here that simply isn't there.