Quote:
Originally Posted by bwana
There seems to be a feeling developing from the respondents here that digital media is fundamentally different than physical media.
|
As has been argued ad nauseum by those who seem to support the consumers right to infringe copyright.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bwana
I am amazed that we even invented this clunkything called DRM. It feels like some steampunk invention out of Dune. Can you imagine if the printing press was treated the same way when they were invented? Can you imagine the church confiscating all printing presses or perhaps only allowing monks to operate them? Would the Gutenberg bible even have been printed?
|
Whilst I agree that DRM is clunky and useless, I can understand why it has been invented.
As was recently argued in another thread, it seems many(but by no means all) believe it is human nature for people to attempt to get away with whatever they can. Some argue it is the
duty of the consumer to enjoy as much content as possible whilst doing whatever they can to circumvent payment for said media.
That being the case, I can understand why those who are selling the content came up with the idea of DRM, even if it doesn't work.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bwana
By confining the distribution of electronic media according to old models, we are limiting ourselves.
|
See this is what I find confusing.....
On the one hand many seem to argue that digital media is a new beast and should be treated differently to analogue media. I agree.
Then these same people seem to argue that this new beast should be treated the same as the old whenever it suits them. ie: Being able to sell their "second hand" digital file.(whilst in many cases, if not most, keeping a copy of the original for their own use)
Either it is a new medium and should be treated as such or it isn't?
Cheers,
PKFFW