3 ms·
>should be be able to choose enforceable legal protection or unbreakable technological protection No. The latter would effectively mean rightsholders make thei
by snvzz 2y ago
>should be be able to choose enforceable legal protection or unbreakable technological protection
No. The latter would effectively mean rightsholders make their own laws, rather than follow the law.
DRM should simply be abolished, as it interferes with the premise of copyright: To grow the public domain.
- p0w3n3d 2y agoyeah, 105 years later we finally have a disney's a mickey mouse, but they still put the ears in every gadget to prolong it as a trademark. TBH I can see now how the conglomerates created by buying smaller studios by big fish start owning everything. They've divided the market by themselves, and now they are rising their prices. Meanwhile I cannot make a screenshot of my favourite cartoon to create a meme, because of "copy protection". But I have right to do it you now? It's written in law in my country (Poland) that I can have small pieces recorded down, screenshotted etc, as long as I am doing some creative work on it, or just keep it to myself. THIS IS THE LAW HERE. And it's being ignored.
- shmerl 2y agoThe point is that they are already effectively making their own laws through DMCA 1201 being a loophole that allows them to negate constitutional rights and fair use. So making DRM void copyright would be still an improvement over current status quo. But I agree, DRM should just be illegal in the first place.