So they're trying to hire people with the desire to help out and make a positive difference(whitehats), for a position that requires them to have the morals and ethics of blackhats. Can't imagine why they might be having difficulty finding people with the right qualifications...
You're splitting hairs. Whether it's technical or legal, it's still something that DRM enables. In the absence of DRM, does a company/seller have the ability described? No? Then you can attribute it to the DRM
No it does not. Legal issue, too.
See above response.
You car have a lock. And your house. Is it "point of failure"?
Locks on your house and car actually serve a purpose, and benefit the owner. DRM punishes the owner, and if it fails it punishes them even more. A lock on a car or house provides protection for the car/house owner, DRM provides 'protection' against them, and ensures they never own what they thought they purchased.
I guess store counter is also very inconvenient, since shoplifting is match simpler.
Right, let me put it this way. Say a store had a problem with shoplifting. Say in response they set up a system that only affected paying customers, making their shopping experience drastically worse, and did absolutely nothing to even mildly inconvenience the actual shoplifters.
It's not a matter of 'inconvinience', it's a matter of who it's affecting, and more importantly, who it isn't. When the ones paying you are getting a worse product and/or experience that the ones who aren't, you're doing something wrong.
In short - you don't like DRM - don't buy a product. Playing videogames is not a must. Open source software is a thing. Hollywood movies are not a "must have" too.
Well, yes. Why would someone like malware?
As for 'Don't like it, don't buy'? I don't. If it has DRM, I give it a pass. If it might have DRM and I can't tell? I give it a pass. Saves me a lot of money that I can spend on people and companies that actually deserve it.
However, this doesn't stop me from being affected by it, because the same type of people that think DRM is a great idea also love to think of even worse way to screw people over, and they generally don't pay too much attention to who is affected. It also doesn't stop DRM from being an insanely stupid idea, thanks to the whole 'Punishes everyone but the claimed target' bit, a fact that always bears repeating.
Those are "benefits" of the DMCA and not of DRM itself.
Both I'd say. DRM without the anti-circumvention clause means you can break it without worry, while the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA without DRM would be pointless. One requires the other, and vice-versa.
Once again, can someone remind me of a single positive thing that has come from DRM?
Well that depends, does any of the following strike you as a good thing?
- Infinite duration copyrights, no matter the current duration, allowing you to lock up a work forever.
- Allowing you to completely undermine the First Sale doctrine, barring any ability of a customer to resell what they bought from you.
- Similar to the above, being able to severely restrict what someone is able to do with your product, regardless of whether or not the actions desired would be legal without the DRM in place.
- Provides a single point of failure for your product, such that if the DRM fails to work for whatever reason, the product itself is bricked, and utterly useless.
- Makes piracy a much more attractive choice by only affecting paying customers, making the paid version noticeably worse and providing incentive for even those that want to pay to pirate instead if they want a working product.
And probably the #1 'benefit' of DRM:
- Allows those selling it to rake in the cash like bandit kings, after they convince a company that the best way to build a professional relationship of mutual respect with their customers is to treat them as criminals by infecting their product with intrusive and restrictive malware/DRM.
Well of course they didn't file any charges, "In possession of nice car in the presence of an officer who wanted it" probably wouldn't look too good on a warrant, and I'm almost positive that's not actually a crime on the books(yet).
Mind, I'm sure the judge would still rubber-stamp the warrant, they're pretty spineless when it comes to anything the police want, but if it went public it wouldn't look too good, and neither police nor judges want that.
If you can't get what you want through the legal or democratic route, just use a 'trade' agreement to force through the desired changes/laws, with none of that 'legal challenge' nonsense getting in the way.
That might actually just make things worse actually, as one of the commentors on the YT vid embedded in the article noted, it's possible 'Davey' has problem getting it up and is lashing out against porn in jealously.
I'll start out by suggesting that you might want to read my comments again, as you seem to be mistaking my position for the one I'm criticizing with your later replies.
So... a streaming service, followed by a purchase option elsewhere? What's your problem with the first part of that?
Hassle and more work than I care to deal with. I don't really care for signing up to a service just to listen to music, when I can skip the first step by going elsewhere. As for the 'free' tiers, if I was a fan of ads, I'd listen to radio. If I want to listen to music, I want to listen to just music. Sure this does limit what I listen to and am exposed to, but I'm willing to accept that as a trade-off for being able to listen as I want. If other people are willing to accept dealing with ads scattered about their music, good for them, but it's not something I personally care to deal with.
So, you hate radio as well? Are you also opposed to people borrowing friends' CDs, since they're listening without paying? Where's the line?
And this is where I feel that you mistook my position with the one I was criticizing. I see nothing wrong with radio myself, even if I don't listen to it myself. Nor with borrowing CD's or what have you.
Rather, my comment, and the one I was replying to, was criticizing those that do have a problem with that sort of 'free' listening, by pointing out that it's short-sighted at best, and likely to cut down on future dollars in exchange for pennies now.
That's true. So, what's your problem with services that allow people to access music legally before they decide to buy?
See above answer. I don't have a problem with such services, rather I have a problem with those criticizing them, as I consider them either greedy and/or short-sighted for doing so.
Distract with one hand while you act with another.
While it's possible that this is really all about porn, I can't help but think, what would be the 'best' way to ensure that children can't access porn sites? Clearly just asking for birth-dates doesn't cut it, they can lie about that.
You can tie an account to something that you generally have to be(or have the cooperation of) an adult to have, like a credit card, but that only works for pay-sites, doing nothing for the free sites, of which there are massively more than paid.
Wait, I know, how about an online identity, tied to your real identity through some means(driver's license, ID card, something like that), that was required to browse at all(because you can't always know ahead of time when you'll run across porn, and some sites may not flag their content appropriately).
However, setting up such a system would be a real hassle, and to make sure it works on all sites, and was done properly, it would probably be best if the ever so helpful government stepped in and set up and ran the system, you know, just out of the goodness of their hearts.
Yes indeed, that would seem to fix the problem. And, purely by accident I'm sure, also allow real time tracking of what people do online, what sites they visit, what searches they make, what comments they leave, and anything else they do online.
But hey, a complete destruction of online privacy is a small price to pay to make it slightly more difficult, for a week or so, for underage individuals to get access to porn, right?
If you know the positions and talking points of the people on the other side of the table, you can research them ahead of time and prepare effective counter-positions and arguments. If you know that they're willing ahead of time to give ground on one matter, contrary to their public claims otherwise, if it means concessions in another matter, then you can use that against them. Knowing how to push and where are of enormous value when it comes to diplomacy and politics.
I used to feel that way, until he sold out the public regarding the 'trade' deal by voting for FTA. Now I see him as just another politician, who cares about what benefits him first and foremost, and if that happens to score him some PR points with the public by making it look like he cares, then all the better.
This is the problem with authoritarian retards - just because it is legal does not make it moral.
Name calling, classy...
Anyway, with that attitude, I trust that you also hold deep contempt for the major labels, who, using their position force artists to sign incredibly one sided deals which allow the label to scoop up all the money, leaving the artist nothing until they 'recoup'(paying back what was 'loaned' to them several times over in the process, if they ever manage it at all)?
The labels who screw the artists in streaming deals by grabbing the majority of the proceeds, leaving the artists a cut in the single digits(before they grab that too), and then try and blame the streaming service, as though they were the greedy ones for daring to want to make enough money to stay afloat?
The labels who love to play words games regarding whether or not a digital purchase is a 'sale' or a 'license', depending on what allows them to pay the least to the artist?
I take it then you hold the labels in contempt for all of the above, and the myriad other tricks they use to hose over the poor saps signed with them? After all, 'just because it's legal does not make it moral'.
Nonsense, it's iTunes or nothing! If they weren't able to offer their music on iTunes, then there is absolutely no other possible way for them to sell their music, since iTunes is the sole way to listen to and/or buy music. /s
I'm not, however unless you're claiming that Apple was able to force them to keep their music on the service, it doesn't matter how much cloud Apple had in the fight, the artists could still pull their music if they didn't like the terms and go elsewhere.
If Apple did have that ability, perhaps thanks to a one-sided contract they signed to be able to offer their music on the service, well maybe don't sign such one-sided contracts, given there are other options nowadays. They may not be as 'good', but as long as artists are willing to sign away everything, then they're going to continue to get the short end of the stick, because the ones writing the contracts know that they'll always have suckers lining up to sign.
'If you don't like the terms, do without' as the saying goes, it's just this time it was being used against the artists, rather than the customers.
"You don't actually own what you just 'bought', you've only 'purchased' a small set of limited rights that we reserve the right to change at our whim. Don't like it, do without."
"You don't have the right to format shift or break the cumbersome malware/DRM in order to back up your 'purchase'. You don't like it, do without."
"You're only allowed to listen to your 'purchase' on select devices, and unlike physical CD's, you're prohibited from selling your music should you wish to. You don't like it, do without."
"We're going to be running a promotional event in order to draw in new listeners and hopefully increase the number of paid listeners. During this event neither you nor us will be getting any money from music played during the duration, but we believe the short term loss will be offset by long term gains. You don't like it, do without."
How ever so terrible that they got to see what it's like on the other end of the 'You don't like it...' deal for once. /s
Nice cherry-picking there, can't possibly imagine why you only posted part of it(and of course your doing so is made even funnier by the '...rather than quote the original' line later in your comment).
Now, let's see what the whole thing says...
'To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8'.
As should be fairly clear by how it's written, in particular the 'To' and 'by' parts, the benefits to 'authors and inventors' are the means, not the goal. The goal is 'to promote the progress of Science and useful Arts', the exclusive rights is just the method to achieve that.
If it was found that no copyright whatsoever, or copyright that lasted all of one week accomplished the goal better, then it would be fully consistent with the copyright clause to make those changes, no matter what that meant for copyright owners.