Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc
My point with the board of directors thing is that they would be the only body that would actually know if they were implementing certain business practices for a particular reason (such as to deprive the consumer of rights).
|
Which neither of us know, so I don't see the point. We both have opinions, neither are invalid. I may believe your opinion is naive, but I certainly respect your right to have your own opinion. Stating my opinion is wrong because I don't really know, and then stating the opposite is true would certainly imply that you DO know. Otherwise it's just hypocritical.
Quote:
|
As I see it you are advocating only from the consumer point of view
|
You say that like it's a bad thing. Most of the time, the people with the power to make a difference are not advocating from the consumer point of view.
Quote:
|
I'm trying to stand up more for the rights of the creator of works that make all this possible. (and yes unfortunately the publishers are in the middle of it).
|
Keeping existing consumer rights in place does not harm the creator's rights.
As I said before, copyright law is what protects the creator, not DRM. DRM is in place to protect the middlemen. Whether you believe it's intentional or not, it is certainly interesting that the DRM which the middlemen create to protect their rights also takes away rights from the consumers. It becomes very suspicious when there is no inherent reason that it must do so.
I'm certainly not against creator's rights. But I'm definitely against the industry using DRM as another method to grab more power for themselves.