Thread: Kindle user says Amazon remotely wiped her whole library [UPDATED: see first post]
View Single Post
Old 11-19-2012, 09:53 AM   #411
murraypaul
Interested Bystander
murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 3,725
Karma: 19728152
Join Date: Jun 2008
Device: Note 4, Kobo One
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious View Post
It's not really like that. Currently people have no personal reason to avoid removing the DRM from a file and uploading it. (Respecting laws and contracts is not a personal reason, in this context: a personal reason is something that tells you that you will be damaged if you do something.)
In my scheme, people will have the very personal reason of not wanting to let down the person who gave them the file (as I explained, for instance, in post #366; please note that it's not necessary that the potential uploader cares about the original file buyer).
This is a key difference. It means that my social DRM system features what I called a "distributed damping system" based on social links between people.
It is no difference at all if the original buyer is uploading the file.
And if someone has no moral issues with uploading a file for thousands of people to download, why would they have an issue with removing watermarking from a file in order to do that? Once removed, they can't get the original buyer in trouble.
murraypaul is offline   Reply With Quote