Re: Cory Doctorow: What happens with digital rights management in the real world? [via Restricted Media Community Group]

Copyright is not a natural right we all have, but an agreement between
creators and the society. DMCA approvation was forced by big companies,
which are just distributors, by the force of the money. I don't think the
society has accepted it. The USA have been busy pressing other countries
into accepting similar laws. I see no democratic process here, so the
society may, one glorious day, claim its rights back and resolve the
copyright contract. We have arguments more than enough, cause we've been
abused in more than a way by the industry.

By the way, congratulations! You've used all the possible propaganda in
this field.

Regards



2014-02-06 John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>:

> Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
> >
> > "DRM is one of the most salient, and least understood, facts about
> > technology in
> > the contemporary world"
> >
> > http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2014/feb/05/digital-rights-
> > management
> >
>
> Putting aside the fact that the Guardian Article you linked us to is "(c)
> 2014 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All
> rights reserved." and that Cory was paid to write that political puff
> piece, he did mention one important fact:
>
>         "You see, contrary to what the judge in Reimerdes said in 2000,
> this has nothing to do with whether information is free or not - it's all
> about whether people are free."
>
> Removing a person's (or company's) ability to enforce their legal right
> around copyright removes a fundamental freedom as well.


> Cory is right about one thing: why DRM exists is one of the least
> understood facts about technology in the world.  Cory continues to
> perpetuate that myth that when you "buy" a movie or audio track that
> somehow you own that creative work. You don't.
>
> Let me repeat that again - you don't *own* the creative work.
>
> You have a license to use it, and that license also specifies certain
> restrictions and restraints. If you are unhappy with that license, you have
> 2 choices: negotiate a different license or do not enter into the contract
> in the first place.
>
> It really is that simple.
>
> This isn't about Free as in Speech, it is about Free as in Beer, and there
> is not a sane person in the world who believes that just because you brew
> beer, you should be forced to allow anyone to come into your brew-house and
> help themselves to your beer.
>
> Finally (and this point keeps getting conveniently pushed aside), if you
> are unhappy with the numerous laws around the world that support content
> owners right's to enforce copyright, then take your fight there: change the
> laws.
>
> Whining about a technology that exists because of demand does no-one any
> good: if you want to see digital rights controls removed, go fight that in
> the right forum. Continued moaning and groaning at the W3C has zero affect
> on DMCA and other legislation, and will not remove the need for some form
> of technology to ensure that people are "free" to legally profit from their
> creative works without the fear of pirates stealing their livelihood or
> reducing it to a near-worthless collection of ones and zeros.
>
> JF
>
>
>
>