[rogue_ronin]

Originally Posted by Requiem

If you would remember back in the day when cable first came around the only way for the cable companies to protect their interests were to scramble channels not paid for. i.e. HBO. Now that is the same conceptual idea of DRM. Limit the use of the product to the people paying for it. Yes you could still hook up a vcr and record those programs and hand them out to friends, but you can also retype the DRM protected files and hand those out if you want. (Not legal I know, but neither was handing around those vcr or cassette tapes in the 80's and 90's)

NO ONE has the right to take and freely distribute a copyrighted item, NO ONE. Which includes B&N's version of the PD files, Those specific copies contain newly copyrighted material and those copies ARE protected therefore the file is protected. I have never heard of 10 pages being DRM'ed while the rest is left without. I am not even sure if they have that ability. There are copies of PD that are NOT copyrighted and those are free to distribute. This is not a complicated issue in the context of the article.

As usual, the independent, moderate mavericky input of someone who either will not, or can not, understand what the point is. Not talking about piracy. Talking about cultural appropriation by increasingly-hegemonic corporate structures, the use of artists as a figleaf for said theft, and the restriction of available cultural material for current artists.

Hey guess what? That's the artists RIGHT to do what he pleases with his/her work.

Really? What a unique and cutting insight. I wish I'd paid attention to history, discussion and news. Instead of just spouting off with something that makes me feel good about my mavericky, independent support for RIGHTS!

The fact that we're largely talking about DEAD people penetrate your sweet, sweet, crunchy, independent, cocoa coating yet? Or that once the rights leave the artists, any sense of inherent, moral entitlement vanishes?

If you keep splitting the difference wouldn't you still be in the middle? Moving to one side or the other is not "splitting the difference".

The only side that moves is the one that's tolerant, that tries to get along with the other. You'll undoubtedly be surprised to learn, given your mavericky nature, that the ones who accommodate are not the folks who have money and power. So if you keep splitting the distance between their positions, the center moves. It's called the Overton Window.

I'm sorry but the view you are taking about moderates is not actually moderates. More of the uneducated, would you consider an independent to be moderate?

I would consider a moderate to be uninformed. And loud about how the people who are informed are so damned impolite as to demonstrate his ignorance to him.

And any side or view can trample the rights of another if people are not careful to accept other viewpoints and listen rather than spouting off absurd generalizations about people they have never met or known.

Sure can, in an imaginary world where pirate-y pirates pursue innocent creators, beating their creations out of them, stealing their reputations, berating them for their creativity and crushing their souls! And where cotton-candy stormclouds rain chocolate monkeys of vengeance!

Of course, that isn't happening. All the trampling is happening, here in the real world, from the people in a position to trample. There is nothing absurd in what I have stated. There is absurdity in equating strongly argued opinions with trampling. There is absurdity in accepting the squishy middle of what are clear moral and ethical choices as some sort of independent, free-thinking, mavericky ideal. There is absurdity in implying superiority of insight while not recognizing that the under-informed, placid middle is a tool used by those with power to shield their excesses.

You're "spouting off" a bit yourself, you know -- how is it that you can comment, but I cannot? (I know the answer and so do you.)

Think about the other side of the problem constructively and without bias before you come to the self-centered conclusion that your view is the only RIGHT one.

There are a lot of ways to approach the problem of the looting of culture. But none of them involve assuming that it isn't happening, or that when people address it what they're saying is "Everyone should rob creators." So I would suggest that you begin thinking, biased or not -- just begin.

You conflate piracy with arguments against copyright extension, DRM with copyright and artist's rights with the interests of business.

Apropos my earlier argument, you are a tool, and very, very useful.

m a r