3 ms·
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 t
by 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 agoSure, 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 agoTo 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.