When somebody can give me a sound, scalable, generic and implementable economic design for goods that cost money to build the first time but are free to copy from then on, I might start to protest against DRM, because I'd actually have an answer to the question of "If not DRM then what?". Until then I'll continue to argue the case for it, use it despite the inconvenience and who knows, maybe even implement it in future.
If DRM actually stopped criminal piracy, then it would be great. But it doesn't, all it does is frustrate the actual paying customer.
Why continue to support companies that use your hard earned money to develop totally useless technologies, that only screw you, the paying customer, not real pirates?
Make a great product, people will buy it, and some will try to steal it.
That's life in business. Don't want to deal with reality, get out of business. And all DRM is, is the Corporate Copyright Elite refusing to deal with reality.
My solution, therefore, is to put the MAFIAA members, and their sycophants, into therapy, so that they can finally admit their problem. We, the people, aren't their sheep for them to rape any longer. Better find a business model that can thrive on selling songs for mere pennies. Cuz at a buck a song with DRM, the only fools you'll find to do that, are AppleFanBoys, who already enjoy getting raped by Jobs way too much.
"'[T]he Business Software Alliance... reports that 35 percent of the world's software is pirated (22 percent in North America)...'"
What the BSA doesn't tell you is that the software piracy rate is considerably lower today than back in 1994, long before the internet file sharing boom. And what they also don't tell you is that the BSA & IDC compile their piracy statistics from numbers supplied by their member corporations, not from actual law enforcement piracy stats.
Does anyone really think that the insurance industry pays off on any of these dubious piracy claims by BSA member corporations?
If so, there's this bridge in Brooklyn you might wanna consider purchasing!
LOL! Until a court rules or Congress makes a law that specifically says that an individual's circumventing of Copy Protection for their own personal and private use of their legally purchased copies of copyrighted material is illegal, then I have really have absolutely NOTHING legally to worry about. And as of yet NO US court has ruled that, so actually it is up to me, kurttrail, to interpret the meaning of the law for myself, and myself only.
And that's the way copyright law works in the US.
If you want to be FUD-ed into believing you cannot legally circumvent copy protection for your own private, non-commercial use of your copies of copyrighted material, then that is your choice, but there is NO law and/or NO court ruling to base that choice on, only FUD.
As for me, I'll continue to base my "fair use" choices on my own literal interpretations of copyright law, and ignore the FUD of the Corporate Copyright Elite and their lackeys, any day of the week, until the courts or Congress specifically state otherwise.
Please show us the language in the DMCA that "makes it illegal to exercise fair use rights if there is DRM in place?"
Nevermind, because there is NO language in the DMCA that "makes it illegal to exercise fair use rights if there is DRM in place." In fact the DMCA states exactly the opposite.
"(c) Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected. - (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title." - http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html
Stop believing the FUD of the Corporate Copyright Elite. "Fair Use" is still alive and kicking in the US, in spite of the money and power of the likes of the RIAA, MPAA, and the BSA!
Slashdot Mirror
When somebody can give me a sound, scalable, generic and implementable economic design for goods that cost money to build the first time but are free to copy from then on, I might start to protest against DRM, because I'd actually have an answer to the question of "If not DRM then what?". Until then I'll continue to argue the case for it, use it despite the inconvenience and who knows, maybe even implement it in future.
If DRM actually stopped criminal piracy, then it would be great. But it doesn't, all it does is frustrate the actual paying customer.Why continue to support companies that use your hard earned money to develop totally useless technologies, that only screw you, the paying customer, not real pirates?
Make a great product, people will buy it, and some will try to steal it.
That's life in business. Don't want to deal with reality, get out of business. And all DRM is, is the Corporate Copyright Elite refusing to deal with reality.
My solution, therefore, is to put the MAFIAA members, and their sycophants, into therapy, so that they can finally admit their problem. We, the people, aren't their sheep for them to rape any longer. Better find a business model that can thrive on selling songs for mere pennies. Cuz at a buck a song with DRM, the only fools you'll find to do that, are AppleFanBoys, who already enjoy getting raped by Jobs way too much.
"'[T]he Business Software Alliance... reports that 35 percent of the world's software is pirated (22 percent in North America)...'"
What the BSA doesn't tell you is that the software piracy rate is considerably lower today than back in 1994, long before the internet file sharing boom. And what they also don't tell you is that the BSA & IDC compile their piracy statistics from numbers supplied by their member corporations, not from actual law enforcement piracy stats.
Does anyone really think that the insurance industry pays off on any of these dubious piracy claims by BSA member corporations?
If so, there's this bridge in Brooklyn you might wanna consider purchasing!
LOL! Until a court rules or Congress makes a law that specifically says that an individual's circumventing of Copy Protection for their own personal and private use of their legally purchased copies of copyrighted material is illegal, then I have really have absolutely NOTHING legally to worry about. And as of yet NO US court has ruled that, so actually it is up to me, kurttrail, to interpret the meaning of the law for myself, and myself only.
And that's the way copyright law works in the US.
If you want to be FUD-ed into believing you cannot legally circumvent copy protection for your own private, non-commercial use of your copies of copyrighted material, then that is your choice, but there is NO law and/or NO court ruling to base that choice on, only FUD.
As for me, I'll continue to base my "fair use" choices on my own literal interpretations of copyright law, and ignore the FUD of the Corporate Copyright Elite and their lackeys, any day of the week, until the courts or Congress specifically state otherwise.
There is no "IF" in the statement, "NOTHING in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title." - http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html [copyright.gov] See the definition of "nothing" http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=dictiona ry&q=nothing
Please show us the language in the DMCA that "makes it illegal to exercise fair use rights if there is DRM in place?"
Nevermind, because there is NO language in the DMCA that "makes it illegal to exercise fair use rights if there is DRM in place." In fact the DMCA states exactly the opposite.
"(c) Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected. - (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title." - http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html
Stop believing the FUD of the Corporate Copyright Elite. "Fair Use" is still alive and kicking in the US, in spite of the money and power of the likes of the RIAA, MPAA, and the BSA!