341–350 of 424 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're interested in their content, then you are interested in the old content industries. If you aren't interested in their content, then what they do will have little effect on you personally. I require a definition of how they are "considered harmful" because I seriously doubt that.
EME is a good example of harm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, are you implying that the UN has declared that stealing the results of someone's labor is justified because it's a "right"? We might as well declare anarchy and get it over with. I also fail to see how copyright laws are preventing anyone from enjoying their culture.
It's sad times we live in when creating culture is labeled "labor", "work" and so forth... About the "stealing" part - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/06/lady-gaga-jack-whit... artists are more than happy to let anyone experience their art, it's the producers that have a problem with it. I guess this is what you get when you allow business-minded people to define what being human is all about...
But if I use my culture as a basis for a song that I write and I wish to sell it to make money, then you're dang right I see it as stealing if someone takes it without my permission.
If an artist wants to share it openly, then that's excellent. But if the artist wishes to make money from their effort why is it your "right" to demand otherwise?
It's not about being business-minded, it's called having rights over your own property.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
EME is a good example of harm.
But how is it harmful to you personally exactly? How is it harmful to anyone?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, are you implying that the UN has declared that stealing the results of someone's labor is justified because it's a "right"? We might as well declare anarchy and get it over with. I also fail to see how copyright laws are preventing anyone from enjoying their culture.
> stealing You keep using that word without realizing that the rest of us may have already moved on to a different concept of ownership.
How shall we define the act of taking property without due compensation that the owner of said property expects?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, are you implying that the UN has declared that stealing the results of someone's labor is justified because it's a "right"? We might as well declare anarchy and get it over with. I also fail to see how copyright laws are preventing anyone from enjoying their culture.
You don't think Mickey Mouse and other Disney properties are part of our culture? Copyright on those works would have expired ages ago, if the laws were enforced as they were written at the time. Disney continues to prevent people from participating in that part of our culture.
Although, I agree with you on the copyright laws, they shouldn't be extended like they have been. But that's an issue to complain to the people who write the laws, not the content providers who take advantage of them.
It is not even a valid comparison to the blinkard pig ignorance of the secret DRM requirements in HTML, which is an open standard.
I'd just like to know what dipshit at the W3 signed off on this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which seems more rooted in the overall ease-of-use and lock-in Steam creates as well as goodwill towards Valve from their games. Steam's terrible - fight them on a transaction, and you could lose your entire library.
You don't even have to fight them on a transaction to lose access to your library. My Steam client (on Mac) is hanging on startup every time and as a result I can't play the games I've bought and paid for. And of course Valve's customer support is doing nothing but sending canned replies. Steam's DRM is still DRM and has all the downsides that come with it. You're exactly right that it's accepted by gamers due to Val…
- Great selection. Just about any game can be bought on Steam
- Steam sales. Amazing, unprecedented prices for games
- The DRM successfully stays pretty much out of the way for 99% of users
- Centralized game management. I don't want to have twelve different game distribution clients, each with one or two games. I would much rather have just one
- Centralized automatic updates. Less of a big deal today than years ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But how is it harmful to you personally exactly? How is it harmful to anyone?
It corrupts the Open Web, meaning that one cannot simply decide to write a web client that will be able to display any standards-compliant content. It corrupts the W3C, in that it weakens their position in maintaining the Open Web, and lessens their value in the eyes of everyone except for the MPAA and its ilk. It harms culture, in that valuable cultural artifacts will be locked up in a way that will render them inac…
What's to stop someone from creating their own web client that doesn't implement that part of the standard? Where's it written that we have to follow every bit of the standard as it is written? Who gave this select group of people that much power over the open web?
Personally, I think the W3C was approaching being corrupted long before this issue. Maybe not in the terms you are describing right now but I've had issues with the behavior of various standard bodies and browser providers that happen to be a part of these bodies for a while now.
As for artifacts of culture being locked away from future generations, that is a potential problem. But we all know a silly DRM scheme isn't going to stop that. But that kind of thing has been in practice for a long time, way before we had electronics and the human race seems to be moving along in despite.
To me, a better solution is to show that people are willing to move on from these aspects of culture that everyone is so hung up on. If enough people show that these schemes don't work in the long run the content providers are more apt to change their ways. Look at the music industry, it's vastly different than it was just a few years ago and continues to change. Let these people attempt their schemes, in the long run it will matter little.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Steam can't be considered DRM free in many cases, for example because they don't let you backing up installers / packages, so if the service closes down you lose your collection. The only completely DRM-free gaming distributor is GOG. Humble Bundle and Desura are mixed. You are right in general though. Going DRM free not only won't hurt any publisher, it will only gain respect from customers and will improve the qual…
And GOG refuses to add GNU/Linux support. Considering that many GOG games run in DOSEmu anyway and some come with native Linux support this is not really understandable.
GOG's position is totally understandable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> stealing You keep using that word without realizing that the rest of us may have already moved on to a different concept of ownership.
By the rest of us I'm guessing a small number of people who have high ideals outside of reality? Your definition almost literally means no one has ownership over anything when it is your "right" to take it as you please. How shall we define the act of taking property without due compensation that the owner of said property expects?