View Single Post
Old 11-15-2012, 02:42 PM   #350
BoldlyDubious
what if...?
BoldlyDubious ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.BoldlyDubious ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.BoldlyDubious ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.BoldlyDubious ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.BoldlyDubious ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.BoldlyDubious ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.BoldlyDubious ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.BoldlyDubious ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.BoldlyDubious ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.BoldlyDubious ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.BoldlyDubious ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
BoldlyDubious's Avatar
 
Posts: 209
Karma: 750870
Join Date: Feb 2011
Device: paper & electrophoretic
Quote:
Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash View Post
This is kind of insulting to those who strip DRM for non-nefarious purposes, you know. You make it sound like one inevitably leads to the other and that is simply not true.
Ooops! Sorry, this was not my intention at all. Wise people will strip the DRM from their files...

Quote:
Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash View Post
Your system gives a reason to strip DRM too. Those who want to share without being paranoid about it would do so to reduce the risk.
Maybe, but they will not be sure that MetadataRemover.exe, that they downloaded from the internet, really works with 100% efficacy. So the people who are sufficiently paranoid about not being paranoid to bother stripping metadata from all their files (with all the associated hassles and -let's not forget that- thus violating the contract with the media vendor) will probably NOT tell the people who get the copies that they did. So those people (who, as I explained, care about avoiding troubles to the file owner) will not share them just as if they still included the metadata.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash View Post
But that's really irrelevant, because it doesn't matter what the typical user (aka, non-pirate) does with the DRM - the people who want to pirate it will still strip the DRM / watermark from the file the second it's possible to do so.
Yes, but they have to get the file to pirate first! And, as I tried to explain, my scheme generates a strong socialpressure towards not letting the wrong people get the files. In this context, the "wrong people" (who include those who will illegally distribute the files or who will give them to someone who will do) are those who (i) don't care if the file owner risks getting into trouble or gets fined and/or (ii) are not perceived as trustworthy by the file owner.

Ah, I almost forgot:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash View Post
DRM-stripping is not a gateway drug to piracy.
made me grin so hard that it almost hurt!

Last edited by BoldlyDubious; 11-15-2012 at 02:46 PM.
BoldlyDubious is offline   Reply With Quote