View Single Post
Old 11-19-2012, 07:43 AM   #408
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 latepaul View Post
It'd be nice if we could separate these out for the purposes of this discussion. Personally I only strip DRM for backup and to use on all my devices. I do not do it to "share" them.
Yes, I think that most of us do the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by latepaul View Post
The more I think about this proposal the more it seems like a lot of change for not very much gain. I get that you care a lot about having the freedom to share legally with friends and family. However limited sharing is already available legally (use on N devices, lend the physcial device). For me the downsides to your scheme are not worth the extra little bit of freedom.
This is in fact one of points that are still open. Would people want/like such a scheme?
However, beside legal sharing with family and friends, the main objective of my scheme is to stop having people's libraries hostage of closed, "walled garden" schemes that will let them stranded if the vendor and/or the publisher go out of business. In my view this is, in the long run, the key issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by latepaul View Post
But I think a lot of these arguments become irrelevant unless and until you can convince publishers to adopt your scheme. I suspect that if you could get them interested by the time it came to agreement the fines/penalties would be much harsher and the "legalised casual sharing" would be more limited than you propose. In fact I suspect it wouldn't be much different to what we have now but with water-marked files.
With respect to this, my "social DRM" proposal is able to defend itself pretty well, I think :-)
In fact, if ever some publishers will consider switching to such a scheme, they will know that if fines are too high and/or limitations to sharing are too restrictive people will simply strip the metadata and be free... exactly what happens today with DRM! So publishers will have to define fines and limitations that make people happy enough to leave the metadata in place. (Or, of course, they can refuse to consider such a scheme. And not benefit from its piracy-prevention properties.)

Last edited by BoldlyDubious; 11-19-2012 at 07:46 AM.
BoldlyDubious is offline   Reply With Quote