Comment by la_barba
7 years ago
It is the freedom of the creator to pick a license and method they wish to use to distribute their work. I'm talking about DRM for things which are mostly entertainment - things like movies, games, music, etc. We all have equal freedoms to not support such platforms. I don't follow what point you're trying to make with your gym example. If the gym has some policies which you dislike, you can simply chose to not go there. (I know people love to take things to extremes, so I'm obviously obviously not talking about racist policies or other illegal exclusionary practices)
They gym doesn't have any policy. If you have a membership, you're free to use the facility or not. Real life doesn't have any policy either, if you have the capability, you're free to copy & distribute what you have access to or not. It is a third party that is trying to interfere with these native abilities. The ability to create something is not intrinsically tied to the ability to control it.
Which isn't to say there's anything wrong with copyright laws, per se. What I'm saying is that it is not 'entitlement' on the part of the copier, but entitlement on the part of the copyright holder to expect to hold dominion over other people's capabilities. That is the negotiated result of social processes.
>if you have the capability, you're free to copy & distribute what you have access to or not.
Well, you can do anything you like with the freedoms you have as enshrined in the legal framework that applies to your domicile. Do you also respect the freedom of a creator to choose a license and a distribution method of their liking for their works? It seems like you don't.
> What I'm saying is that it is not 'entitlement' on the part of the copier, but entitlement on the part of the copyright holder to expect to hold dominion over other people's capabilities.
But the fact is that one of those people is on firm legal ground, and the other one isn't.
>Which isn't to say there's anything wrong with copyright laws, per se.
Well, your comments seem to indicate that you find many things wrong with the copyright law.
>Do you also respect the freedom of a creator to choose a license and a distribution method of their liking for their works? It seems like you don't.
It seems like you want to peddle a narrative. Otherwise you wouldn't be jumping to conclusions about things you have no knowledge of.
>Well, your comments seem to indicate that you find many things wrong with the copyright law.
My comments are not referring to the merit of copyright law. In fact, I explicitly said that I'm not arguing there was anything wrong with it per se in order to highlight that. So if that's what you're looking for, stop. You are missing my point. Don't accuse me of trying to make a point that I am explicitly telling you I'm not trying to make. That is beyond uncharitable.
>But the fact is that one of those people is on firm legal ground, and the other one isn't.
Copyright law was invented in the seventeenth century. The vast majority of human history has taken place in a world where humans were rewarded for copying and sharing any information they could find. I have the lyrics to a copyrighted song stuck in my head at this very moment! I don't want it, but it is there.
My objection is the use of the word 'entitlement,' which is nothing more than a propagandist term here.
2 replies →
Gyms are substitutable, "movies, games, music, etc." are not. Your argument works for e.g. Steam vs. GOG when both carry a particular game, but it doesn't work in general, because a DRMed work is usually DRMed everywhere.
Well, okay, maybe you won't be able to buy a non-DRM version of a game you really like. That is a problem for the creator. If people simply walked out of a situation where they don't agree with the terms, maybe more creators would notice.
Piracy is essentially "walking out of a situation".