4 ms·

I think this argument is disingenuous. We as consumers do not have any "right" to copyrighted content. If you can't watch a movie because of some distribution p

I think this argument is disingenuous. We as consumers do not have any "right" to copyrighted content. If you can't watch a movie because of some distribution problem, so what? It's their loss because they've alienated a purchaser, but it still doesn't mean you are entitled to it. I am very against DRM on content I have purchased, and I've admittedly "sampled" music that I may or may not have purchased later. But I've never violated digital rights because I felt like I had some sort of privilege to do so. I would love to see an overhaul of the industry, but until we do, we can play by their rules, or at least be genuine about it when we don’t.

wvenable 17y ago
Copyright is a compromise between the general public and the creators of the material. It's a construct that exists to promote the creation and distribution of works. If you can't watch a movie, what does that serve? The public is clearly not getting anything. And the creator isn't getting anything either. Everybody loses. This isn't the same as simply not being able to pay either.
callahad 17y ago
I agree. My main contention is with technology being bent to enforce compliance. Per definition, this only inconveniences legitimate consumers, since in order to pirate something at all, those measures must have been defeated. Basically, I don't take issue with copyright law. I take issue with producers "managing" my rights for me. Tell me my rights, trust me to abide by them, and sue me for transgressions.