|Subject:||Re: [Drm-elimination-crew] Apple to resurrect music DRM|
|Date:||Thu, 27 Jun 2013 21:28:40 +0100|
Copies (streaming is just another way of copying) and transmission of property are two different things.
There are also non-DRM'd streaming services ( libre.fm being just one example).
Forgive my possible ignorance here, but - is this an opposition to all music streaming services, because they are by their very technology not transmission of ownership? I don't see DRM mentioned explicitly in the referenced article.
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Kẏra <address@hidden> wrote:On Mon, 2013-06-24 at 18:50 +0100, Graham wrote:Public opinion needs to be better informed. We take an absolute position
> On Monday 24 June 2013 17:20:08 Marcos Marado wrote:
> > On Saturday 22 June 2013 14:45:05 Graham wrote:
> > > This is going to be a difficult argument to win. This example seems to
> > > be the most legitimate case for DRM. The argument is that the music is
> > > available DRM-free for a reasonable price for those who want to own it
> > > and is also available streamed for a tiny fraction of the price (roughly
> > > 1/100 if you believe the article) but at that price it can't be stored,
> > > time-shifted, etc.
> > >
> > > I would be interested in ideas for how we argue against that.
> > Well, I think that the main argument against this is that price has
> > anything to do with it. DRM is about restricting users' rights,
> > independently of its price. I get my rights restricted when a DVD has DRM,
> > no matter how much or how little it cost.
> I am certainly not in favour of DRM but I don't think any "absolute" position
> is going to be winnable in the court of public opinion. Price is part of most
> ordinary people's reasonableness test.
because otherwise there would be no other force to sway public opinion.
We are not the type of group that waters down positions for popularity
only to make ruinous compromises. While an absolute position may not be
winnable off the bad, the strategy we need is not to abandon our
position, but to make it appeal to public interests.
The first message to this list outlined an important idea in campaigning
> But you have certainly brought up some additional arguments that I think we
> might use even in this example. So, in addition to the point that DRM
> restricts the user's choice of player, we should probably think about how to
> explain that other concerns apply just as much to the streaming services as to
> other forms of the content.
> o Copyright law has exceptions which depend on country but often include
> concepts like fair use, satire, quotation, review or educational use. These
> exceptions are there for good public policy reasons. DRM prevents exercising
> those exceptions, which should apply to the streamed content just as much as
> to other forms.
> o DRM doesn't work -- it doesn't prevent piracy and it just adds cost and
> hassle and bugs. The service will work better, and can be cheaper, without
against DRM, and that is that it has nothing to do with enforcing
copyright, but also that it is very effective at what it does:
It is a DRM issue because this is done with DRM, not merely a contract.
> > I totally disagree. It is a bad thing that the local public library is
> > forced to have DRM on their ebooks (and, for instance, need to buy a new
> > ebook when one has been lended 26 times), and it is bad no matter how
> > can I, as an individual consumer, legally obtain the same book.
> The 26 times is really not a DRM issue: it is a contract issue. Libraries are
> not in the business of breaking contracts: if the publisher sold them the book
> without DRM but with that as a contract term then libraries would still follow
If the publisher had sold the same book without DRM but with that as a
contract that would be an entirely separate story, but it isn't.
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|