4 ms·

That law should be changed. If you distribute your intellectual property with DRM, that work should forever be exempt from copyright protection. You get to choo

That law should be changed. If you distribute your intellectual property with DRM, that work should forever be exempt from copyright protection. You get to choose one or the other, but never both, because DRM effectively removes the work from the public domain in perpetuity. Even accidentally releasing a demo or preview with DRM should invalidate copyright on that software/movie/book/whatever.

matheusmoreira 1y ago
Not extreme enough. Copyright itself should be abolished straight up. It's the information age, the AI age. Artificial limitations nonsense like copyright does nothing but hold us back. Even the corporations think so: they violate copyright at massive scales on a daily basis just to train their AI models. Why rules for us but not for them? That particular hipocrisy should have caused the elimination of copyright worldwide.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
  > Copyright itself should be abolished straight up. I wouldn't go that far. 18 months is long enough though.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- charcircuit 1y ago
  >Why rules for us but not for them? Fair use exists for both people and corporations. Just because a corporation copies something in a way that is fre use, that doesn't mean that people should be able to freely copy it.
  - matheusmoreira 1y ago
    How could training of AI models possibly be considered fair use?
    - immibis 1y ago
      The court said it was. Equally cynically, it's fair use because if it isn't, the entire economy collapses overnight.
      - matheusmoreira 1y ago
        Then the court is either stupid or subservient to corporate interests. In both of these cases they deserve zero respect. > Equally cynically, it's fair use because if it isn't, the entire economy collapses overnight. Sounds about right. If they had the moral fortitude to apply the laws as they were supposed to, they'd do the right thing and if it collapses the economy then so be it. The fact they didn't reveals political calculation in their judgements. When laws are stripped of their moral advantage, resistance to laws, courts and authorities becomes civil disobedience and a moral imperative of citizens. We cannot have mutually exclusive ideas existing simultaneously. That's how we get distortions like "you citizen must pay outta the nose for everything but the elite corporations can do whatever they want with complete impunity". The only acceptable way for them to resolve their conundrum is to either hold corporations accountable for their copyright infringement or abolish copyright for all. Anything else can and should cause civil unrest.
    - charcircuit 1y ago
      Because an AI model is not a market replacement for a book. ChatGPT doesn't compete against Little House on the Prairie.
gruez 1y ago
> because DRM effectively removes the work from the public domain in perpetuity. This doesn't make for a good anti-DRM argument because the concern can simply be addressed by requiring a DRM-free copy to be deposited at the library of congress (or similar[1]) so it can be released in 150 years (or whatever) it actually becomes public domain. Moreover how would you even define what "DRM" is? Is spotify refusing to provide a .mp3 file download for their streaming service a "DRM"? What if they implement streaming via webrtc, to make it extra-annoying to manually download? For games, is it "DRM" to add mandatory online requirements even for single player? What if there's an ostensible reason for the online requirement, like if the gameplay is computed server-side a-la world of warcraft? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_deposit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_deposit
- nemomarx 1y ago
  Would private fan servers qualify as fair use once wow is in the public domain?
- NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
  >This doesn't make for a good anti-DRM argument because the concern can simply be addressed by requiring a DRM-free copy to be deposited at the library of congress Then do that. It's not my job to try to argue your side of things. No one does that, as you well know, so my argument not only stands, but wins. >Moreover how would you even define what "DRM" is? Anything that interferes with copying the work in question. >Is spotify refusing to provide a .mp3 file download for their streaming service a "DRM"? Yes. This is an obnoxiously juvenile question. The nature of streaming services is that they send the media to the node (on demand). If that is done in a way that makes it difficult to play it a second time except to "stream" it again, you can hardly claim this is incidental. They go to great lengths to prevent it. >For games, is it "DRM" to add mandatory online requirements even for single player? Again, yes. There is no other purpose to such a requirement, and no one makes it a secret that this is done specifically to thwart so-called "piracy" attempts. >What if there's an ostensible reason for the online requirement, like if the gameplay is computed server-side a-la world of warcraft? You mean like with Blizzard, where they sued the programmers who did bnetd and prevented people from connecting to third party servers which computed gameplay? That wasn't even done to further piracy, by the way, they were just being dicks.
immibis 1y ago
Analogously to the choice between trade secret and patent.
Thorrez 1y ago
The law is especially difficult to change because the law is based upon copyright treaties that the country (e.g. the US) has entered into.
vikarti 1y ago
Potential issue: what EXACTLY DRM is? Is "you can only read this book/view this video on tivoized device which have it's own cellular connection to mothership and no USB/Ethernet/WiFi" counts as DRM for this purposes? What about "you can only buy this book at some obscure store which have it's own obscure reader which only work on specific versions of specific OS"? What if said OS is out-of-date? What about "you can buy only from specific store, store provides you reader app als specifically allows you to gift reader and books to friends,etc but reader app is personalized and will tell your name on start up"?(btw,I did buy some books protected this way in 00s)

matheusmoreira 1y ago

Not extreme enough. Copyright itself should be abolished straight up. It's the information age, the AI age. Artificial limitations nonsense like copyright does nothing but hold us back. Even the corporations think so: they violate copyright at massive scales on a daily basis just to train their AI models. Why rules for us but not for them? That particular hipocrisy should have caused the elimination of copyright worldwide.

NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
> Copyright itself should be abolished straight up. I wouldn't go that far. 18 months is long enough though.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
charcircuit 1y ago
>Why rules for us but not for them? Fair use exists for both people and corporations. Just because a corporation copies something in a way that is fre use, that doesn't mean that people should be able to freely copy it.
- matheusmoreira 1y ago
  How could training of AI models possibly be considered fair use?
  - immibis 1y ago
    The court said it was. Equally cynically, it's fair use because if it isn't, the entire economy collapses overnight.
    - matheusmoreira 1y ago
      Then the court is either stupid or subservient to corporate interests. In both of these cases they deserve zero respect. > Equally cynically, it's fair use because if it isn't, the entire economy collapses overnight. Sounds about right. If they had the moral fortitude to apply the laws as they were supposed to, they'd do the right thing and if it collapses the economy then so be it. The fact they didn't reveals political calculation in their judgements. When laws are stripped of their moral advantage, resistance to laws, courts and authorities becomes civil disobedience and a moral imperative of citizens. We cannot have mutually exclusive ideas existing simultaneously. That's how we get distortions like "you citizen must pay outta the nose for everything but the elite corporations can do whatever they want with complete impunity". The only acceptable way for them to resolve their conundrum is to either hold corporations accountable for their copyright infringement or abolish copyright for all. Anything else can and should cause civil unrest.
  - charcircuit 1y ago
    Because an AI model is not a market replacement for a book. ChatGPT doesn't compete against Little House on the Prairie.

gruez 1y ago

> because DRM effectively removes the work from the public domain in perpetuity. This doesn't make for a good anti-DRM argument because the concern can simply be addressed by requiring a DRM-free copy to be deposited at the library of congress (or similar[1]) so it can be released in 150 years (or whatever) it actually becomes public domain. Moreover how would you even define what "DRM" is? Is spotify refusing to provide a .mp3 file download for their streaming service a "DRM"? What if they implement streaming via webrtc, to make it extra-annoying to manually download? For games, is it "DRM" to add mandatory online requirements even for single player? What if there's an ostensible reason for the online requirement, like if the gameplay is computed server-side a-la world of warcraft? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_deposit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_deposit

nemomarx 1y ago
Would private fan servers qualify as fair use once wow is in the public domain?
NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
>This doesn't make for a good anti-DRM argument because the concern can simply be addressed by requiring a DRM-free copy to be deposited at the library of congress Then do that. It's not my job to try to argue your side of things. No one does that, as you well know, so my argument not only stands, but wins. >Moreover how would you even define what "DRM" is? Anything that interferes with copying the work in question. >Is spotify refusing to provide a .mp3 file download for their streaming service a "DRM"? Yes. This is an obnoxiously juvenile question. The nature of streaming services is that they send the media to the node (on demand). If that is done in a way that makes it difficult to play it a second time except to "stream" it again, you can hardly claim this is incidental. They go to great lengths to prevent it. >For games, is it "DRM" to add mandatory online requirements even for single player? Again, yes. There is no other purpose to such a requirement, and no one makes it a secret that this is done specifically to thwart so-called "piracy" attempts. >What if there's an ostensible reason for the online requirement, like if the gameplay is computed server-side a-la world of warcraft? You mean like with Blizzard, where they sued the programmers who did bnetd and prevented people from connecting to third party servers which computed gameplay? That wasn't even done to further piracy, by the way, they were just being dicks.

immibis 1y ago

Analogously to the choice between trade secret and patent.

Thorrez 1y ago

The law is especially difficult to change because the law is based upon copyright treaties that the country (e.g. the US) has entered into.

vikarti 1y ago

Potential issue: what EXACTLY DRM is? Is "you can only read this book/view this video on tivoized device which have it's own cellular connection to mothership and no USB/Ethernet/WiFi" counts as DRM for this purposes? What about "you can only buy this book at some obscure store which have it's own obscure reader which only work on specific versions of specific OS"? What if said OS is out-of-date? What about "you can buy only from specific store, store provides you reader app als specifically allows you to gift reader and books to friends,etc but reader app is personalized and will tell your name on start up"?(btw,I did buy some books protected this way in 00s)