Quote:
Originally Posted by doreenjoy
there is such a huge anti DRM bias on this forum that there isn't even room for moderate viewpoints.
|
What, someone stopped you from posting your passive-aggressive whinge?
Plenty of room for that, don't see anyone stopping you. Maybe you don't like it when people address it, but you can keep doing it.
What you're really complaining about is that no one with any passion on the topic respects your moderation -- largely because moderates usually a) don't pay enough attention to have a valid insight, or b) constantly want to split the difference out of some misguided belief that we should all just get along. While one side uses force, lies and money to cheat the other. And so they keep splitting the difference, and splitting it again, moving closer and closer to the side that lies.
The fact that moderates don't recognize, or don't admit, that the play being made by DRM forces is one that is designed to vacuum up culture, in a
political bid for dominance over the means of distribution of information and art makes their positions untenable in argument, and inadequate in discussion. They are
"useful idiots".
There are very few people who argue against DRM, that argue
for "stealing from artists." But that is what we hear over and over again -- straw man arguments that are put forward to instill fear and righteousness.
Really, it gets my knickers in a twist when
artists (and you are one, I believe) don't recognize when they're being used as a figleaf. Few artists retain their copyrights, they are sold for access to distribution, usually, or sold by their inheritors, or sold in financial straits. You have companies that do nothing but buy rights to artists creations.
DRM is an attempt to control access to distribution, access to audience. It has
nothing to do with protecting copyright.
Copyright isn't lost when someone makes a copy, but
control is.
When someone locks a PD text under DRM, we here might know that it is available for free somewhere else, but most people won't. Because of this, they will be limited to the licensing and permission of a large corporation for access to their culture. And "most people" is where the power and money is. If/when Amazon is the source for 90% of the books available, who is going to have to please who to get access? Poor ol' Amazon, bowing to the will of the peepul? Please. After the latest Orwellian disaster, Bezos didn't promise to remove their control over the content of anyone's Kindle, they just said that they handled it "stupidly." Next time they decide to remove something, they'll be "smarter" about it.
Yay us?
This model of corporate control has worked so
well for journalism in the US -- it's been awesome to watch. It's been great for the automobile industry, music, manufacturing, financial services, etc, etc. It'll be great for the book industry, too! Let's just keep
trusting them to do the right thing.
We are the first generation of artists that do not have the right to access our predecessors work to create new work. And it is because of greed, arrogance, shortsightedness and ignorance.
So, keep being useful. It's a big help.
m a r