3 ms·
That is a completely specious argument and I think you know it. A: We are not talking about a product here. We aren't selling an image to somebody, then slappi
by TrevorJ 13y ago
That is a completely specious argument and I think you know it.
A: We are not talking about a product here. We aren't selling an image to somebody, then slapping a watermark on it. We are creating material, at our own expense that we are using to advertise a product. Do you think that Coke should be allowed to use Pepsi's marketing as their own, or is not allowing that some sort of draconian DRM tactic too?
B: We aren't actually talking about consumers here at all - the issue is the inability to control how other companies use the materials you've created, and hold the rights to.
- mikeash 13y agoTalk about specious arguments! Where did I ever say that other companies should be allowed to use your images? Please remember that DRM is completely unrelated to legal permission to violate someone's copyright. Confusing the two is a favorite tactic of RIAA-type people, though, so your post just makes the parallel all the stronger.
- TrevorJ 13y agoI'm not sure why you are conflating a watermark with DRM in the first place, or how you could possibly think this has anything to do with 'RIAA-type people'. I'm honestly not sure what to even say to you because you aren't making any sense.
- mikeash 13y agoWatermarks are definitely DRM in my book. A technological measure used to prevent or at least discourage copyright infringement. It's the same basic idea as e.g. the coded anti-piracy dots you see in movie theaters. My point is quite simple: the arguments being made defending watermarks are the exact same arguments people make to defend DRM on movies and music. That doesn't mean they're wrong, of course.
- TrevorJ 13y agoAh, I think I understand your position on this, thank you for explaining. Even if the arguments sound the same, they are valid (or not), for very different reasons, because the situations are very different.