3 ms·

Except this means there's ZERO chance of any sorts of rights granting later. DVD's have protection and what we would categorize as DRM today. Yet, in 2012 the

Except this means there's ZERO chance of any sorts of rights granting later. DVD's have protection and what we would categorize as DRM today. Yet, in 2012 the U.S. Copyright Office ruled that we have a right to rip these things into other formats for certain uses. It has also made similar rulings regarding jailbreaking, which Apple asserted was a DMCA violation. If everything is a service, then you own nothing, and pretty much have no historic property rights. Ever changing EULAs rule. How that's a good thing is beyond me. We should be attacking this ruling not praising it. I bought a book. Its my property. Hopefully, this stupidity won't come to the states. Lastly, if you think books sold in the EU without any DRM mechanisms will be seen as property.. well I've got a bridge to sell you. To EU bureaucrats, those are services too.

Silhouette 12y ago
Lastly, if you think books sold in the EU without any DRM mechanisms will be seen as property.. well I've got a bridge to sell you. To EU bureaucrats, those are services too. It's not just EU bureaucrats, sadly. I can't immediately find it, but one of the most depressing things I ever read was some proceedings from a government review of copyright here in the UK prior to the recent legislation that finally added various new statutory exceptions. It consisted of a bunch of unelected people with power to legislate (members of the House of Lords), many of whom declared an interest as people with ties to Big Media one way or another, cross-examining IIRC a senior civil servant whose department were making formal recommendations about the new rules, who stated bluntly that his primary interest was "UK PLC". The general tone of the entire hearing was that obviously any changes to copyright law should make sure big business still gets its money one way or another, and the only interesting question was how. The idea that copyright might simply no longer be a reasonable model for the digital age and some other economic model might be more effective didn't seem to occur to anyone. The idea that copyright might inherently cause harm in terms of the public being able to enjoy works they had already paid for, and that any such harm should therefore be outweighed by some greater benefit for the existence of copyright in law to be ethical and justified at all, was mentioned briefly by I think one or two speakers right at the end of the discussion. They received the parliamentary version of a five-year-old being patted on the head and told how adorable they are. And this was in a debate specifically about new rules to allow people who had obtained lawful copies of a work to enjoy them in perfectly reasonable ways -- indeed, ways millions of UK citizens enjoy every day already, often blissfully unaware that they are even breaking the law, because the idea that what they are doing might not be completely reasonable and could possibly be against the law doesn't even occur to them. I have seen plenty of evidence of governments pandering to special interests. I have seen plenty of evidence of governments being completely disconnected from reality. I have seen plenty of evidence of government "debates" that were nothing of the kind. Few of these made me as nauseous as seeing that particular example of "democracy in action".

Silhouette 12y ago

Lastly, if you think books sold in the EU without any DRM mechanisms will be seen as property.. well I've got a bridge to sell you. To EU bureaucrats, those are services too. It's not just EU bureaucrats, sadly. I can't immediately find it, but one of the most depressing things I ever read was some proceedings from a government review of copyright here in the UK prior to the recent legislation that finally added various new statutory exceptions. It consisted of a bunch of unelected people with power to legislate (members of the House of Lords), many of whom declared an interest as people with ties to Big Media one way or another, cross-examining IIRC a senior civil servant whose department were making formal recommendations about the new rules, who stated bluntly that his primary interest was "UK PLC". The general tone of the entire hearing was that obviously any changes to copyright law should make sure big business still gets its money one way or another, and the only interesting question was how. The idea that copyright might simply no longer be a reasonable model for the digital age and some other economic model might be more effective didn't seem to occur to anyone. The idea that copyright might inherently cause harm in terms of the public being able to enjoy works they had already paid for, and that any such harm should therefore be outweighed by some greater benefit for the existence of copyright in law to be ethical and justified at all, was mentioned briefly by I think one or two speakers right at the end of the discussion. They received the parliamentary version of a five-year-old being patted on the head and told how adorable they are. And this was in a debate specifically about new rules to allow people who had obtained lawful copies of a work to enjoy them in perfectly reasonable ways -- indeed, ways millions of UK citizens enjoy every day already, often blissfully unaware that they are even breaking the law, because the idea that what they are doing might not be completely reasonable and could possibly be against the law doesn't even occur to them. I have seen plenty of evidence of governments pandering to special interests. I have seen plenty of evidence of governments being completely disconnected from reality. I have seen plenty of evidence of government "debates" that were nothing of the kind. Few of these made me as nauseous as seeing that particular example of "democracy in action".