?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Event on Saturday to get DRM out of the Boston Public Library - The Boston Community — LiveJournal [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
The Boston Community

[ website | b0st0n memories ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Event on Saturday to get DRM out of the Boston Public Library [Feb. 7th, 2008|11:04 am]
The Boston Community

b0st0n

[johnsu01]

DefectiveByDesign.org has announced an action against libraries that support DRM on their collections. Boston locals can join them this Saturday from 1pm to 3pm at the Boston Public Library's main branch, and non-locals are encouraged to stage an action against their own library if it's using DRM.

Read story at Digg

(I'll be there.)

linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: baughj
2008-02-07 05:50 pm (UTC)
So....let me get this straight. You're basically saying that my rights evaporate entirely when it comes to pure, aetheric "intellectual property" - but that the act of binding intellectual property to a physical object magically restores all of my rights? You must have been an alchemist in a previous life.

You also conflate the issue, and assume since I am against DRM, I must, of course, use BitTorrent 24 hours a day to screw artists out of money. Not everyone who dislikes DRM decides that artists need no compensation and decide to pirate everything and anything. The difference of opinion here is really about what rights the artist retains when he transmits the works (via whatever medium) to the consumer.

As far as DRM goes, there is no such thing as completely enforceable DRM, unless you like the concept of your computer's hardware and all its software not really belonging to you, and you also dig the idea of living in a police state.

DRM fails and will always fail because it assumes from the beginning that the agent who wishes to restrict has full control over the software and hardware of the machine. DRM is like handing someone keys to your house in a taped cardboard box and asking them "Please, don't open this box. Seriously."

It is not a deterrent in any way to piracy (this is absolutely proven) and it causes serious problems and interference for many consumers who genuinely want to support the artists. Ever been fucked over by FairPlay? How about the fact that the number of authorized devices for iTunes has gone down over time?

DRM means the rules change arbitrarily, when the enforcer feels like it. DRM means your access can be revoked at any time to what you have paid for. DRM means you don't actually own what you pay for, or have any irrevocable rights to it.

You wouldn't sign a contract if the contract said, in fine print, "WangCorp has the ability to retroactively update and change this contract, and reserves the right to do so without notification."

You wouldn't ever sign it. In fact, you'd probably tell them to piss off. Yet this is the very architecture and system you praise for "protecting your work".
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: thetathx1138
2008-02-07 06:22 pm (UTC)
You're basically saying that my rights evaporate entirely when it comes to pure, aetheric "intellectual property" - but that the act of binding intellectual property to a physical object magically restores all of my rights?

No, I'm saying you're acting like digital media and physical media are the same. They're not and to assume so, especially for the case of something like this, is ridiculous. You are basically saying that if I make and distribute a digital copy of my work, only ONE person has to pay for it, and on the basis of that one person, everyone else with a computer gets it for free.

This is how your argument works out IN PRACTICE. Don't even pretend otherwise.

Not everyone who dislikes DRM decides that artists need no compensation and decide to pirate everything and anything. The difference of opinion here is really about what rights the artist retains when he transmits the works (via whatever medium) to the consumer.

Not everyone who dislikes DRM is a pirate, true. I'm not a pirate, I put my money where my mouth is. HOWEVER, enough people ARE pirates that it's a problem that needs to be carefully considered and makes the issue a lot greyer than either side likes to pretend it is.

As far as DRM goes, there is no such thing as completely enforceable DRM, unless you like the concept of your computer's hardware and all its software not really belonging to you, and you also dig the idea of living in a police state.

Yes, I am aware that DRM has holes. Thank you, for repeating the obvious.

Also, you seem to be under the impression that all DRM is draconian. Um, no. I'm also tired of the police-state hyperbole. Read up on East Germany before you trot that shit out.

Ever been fucked over by FairPlay? How about the fact that the number of authorized devices for iTunes has gone down over time?

No, I haven't. I don't switch computers and iPods often enough that either of these issues are such a big deal, and I knew about this kind of thing before I bought anything from the iTunes store. You're not going to win any arguments with me by getting into the crybaby corner assuming that the music labels were always going to play nice or by not reading the fine fucking print (yes, I read EULAs.) Anything that I don't want to lose, I buy a physical copy of.

DRM means the rules change arbitrarily, when the enforcer feels like it. DRM means your access can be revoked at any time to what you have paid for. DRM means you don't actually own what you pay for, or have any irrevocable rights to it.

No, no and no. Some DRM does in fact do this, and I object to those systems. Others it doesn't.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)