View Single Post
Old 11-14-2012, 02:12 PM   #329
CWatkinsNash
IOC Chief Archivist
CWatkinsNash ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.CWatkinsNash ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.CWatkinsNash ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.CWatkinsNash ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.CWatkinsNash ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.CWatkinsNash ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.CWatkinsNash ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.CWatkinsNash ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.CWatkinsNash ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.CWatkinsNash ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.CWatkinsNash ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
CWatkinsNash's Avatar
 
Posts: 3,485
Karma: 32531038
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Device: Nook STR Glowlight, Sony T1, Acer Iconia A200
Since some of my responses have traveled all over the map of this discussion, I thought I'd spend a few minutes of my lunch break to summarize where I stand on the various points.

I am not opposed to social DRM itself. That isn't where my concerns are. My issues are with:
  • Legal copy-based transfer of files without reliable transfer of responsibility
  • Lack of clear definitions / limits - people need parameters to work within, because we don't all have consistent ideas of "how much is too much" or where the line is between sharing and publishing and piracy

What I would be all for is a watermark DRM system that removes the vendor lock-in by eliminating proprietary DRM formats, and I would be for a system of sharing that transfers the license and makes the recipient the current owner. Mary wouldn't "share" the book with Bill, she would give it to him and he would then be the new owner and the responsible party.
CWatkinsNash is offline   Reply With Quote