Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious
Catlady, I don't see why you are so strongly against a scheme (my proposal of post #356) that doesn't change anything for people that think like you but gives new freedom to media users AND reduces piracy.
It does no such thing. It creates an illusion of freedom only, because the potential consequences of using that freedom are potentially devastating.
Presently, if you buy media from mainstream services (Kindle, iTunes) you can do two things:
1) live happily in the "walled garden" that these services close you in;
2) strip the DRM and be free to share/backup your files, at the price of doing something that breaks a license agreement and/or the law (but with extremely low risk of prosecution).
With my "social DRM", you can still do 1) and 2) but you also can do 3)
3) leave the metadata in place and be free to share/backup your files without having to break any license agreement and/or law, accepting that if you behave irresponsibly you can get a fine in the end.
And I need #3 because ...?
Has anyone anywhere ever faced legal action for stripping DRM for one's personal use?
I don't want and don't like to break the law or a contract, and would choose 3). You can continue with 2) if you prefer. Why does having other people have more freedom (and accept risks that they are willing to accept) upsets you?
??? A contract I don't specifically agree to is not an enforceable contract. In your silly scheme (and at this point I can't avoid calling it anything but silly), I wouldn't get a choice--I'd be stuck with something that might result in my being punished for actions beyond my control.
Don't you get that it is unacceptable for a person to be held responsible for something beyond his control, something done without his knowledge? If someone steals my wallet, uses my cash to buy a gun, and then shoots someone, am I supposed to share the blame because I allowed my money to be stolen?
This discussion is going in circles, and it's not about anything realistic anyway. So I'm done.
P.S. I guess I'm not really done--what about public libraries? Somebody borrows a book, uploads it to a file-sharing site; what then, fine the library? Yeah, there are records of who borrowed each book, but no way to prove which of those borrowers is the real crook.
Now I'm done.