6 ms·
So do I. That way will mean that I will probably never be able to use it on my (Linux) laptop, but that's fine, because I don't want to use something with DRM a
by w1ntermute 13y ago
So do I. That way will mean that I will probably never be able to use it on my (Linux) laptop, but that's fine, because I don't want to use something with DRM anyway. Torrents work just fine until the movie industry learns what the music industry learned the hard way.
- icebraining 13y agoThe DRM proposals required binary blobs too for the actual decryption, so you'd probably be unable to use it on Linux either way.
- w1ntermute 13y agoRight, and so I'd rather see the W3C not compromise its integrity.
- sbuk 13y agoThe minute you suggest torrenting media is the minute you lose the moral high-ground. You aren't owed this stuff, neither are you entitled to it. If you don't agree with the way media is distributed, don't consume it. By torrenting the media, you are playing into the proponents of DRMs hands.
- lucian1900 13y agoI still think it's irrelevant. DRM doesn't stop casual copyright infringement anyway. It's only ever used to control distributors (in this case the likes of Netflix), but that doesn't make much sense to me anyway, since they have expensive-to-breach contracts with them.
- sbuk 13y agoA downvote? Care to explain?
- nitrogen 13y agoMoral high ground -- closely related to the tu quoque fallacy.
- sbuk 13y agoThat'd be Argumentum ad logicam. The 'Torrents work just fine until the movie industry learns what the music industry learned the hard way.' approach is bordering on a two wrongs make a right fallacy itself.
- mikeash 13y agoYou're the one who brought morals into the conversation. The original statement is 100% correct: torrents do work just fine. Their morality was not mentioned until your reply.
- sbuk 13y agoIf we remove morals from the debate, then the whole F/LOSS movement is meaningless. By ending the statement "...until the movie industry learns what the music industry learned the hard way." implies a moral lesson and as such is an appeal to morals. The value being proffered, that DRM is fundamentally wrong and shouldn't be allowed as it affects the end users rights (a moral issue if ever there was one) is lost when work is taken without consent to teach that lesson. My point stands, irrespective of whether a trite fallacy is relied upon. So no, I didn't bring moral into the discussion. The discussion is fundamentally a moral issue. So please, drop the faux indignation and lecturing, it's not appreciated
- nitrogen 13y agoThe Free Software and Open Source movements have strong practical arguments in their favor; there's no need to invoke morality to promote F/LOSS. Arguments against DRM are similarly pragmatic; the cost to all computing simply isn't worth the tiny perceived benefit to a very few. The lesson to be learned by DRM proponents is not a moral one; it is the very practical lesson that people don't want it.