[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

> As in, the Free Software Foundation wouldn't be interested in participating in the for-profit software market.

You are mistaken. The FSF does not object to making a profit with software. In fact, they have been selling software themselves. It's about free as in freedom, not about free as in beer.

[6stringmerc]

Arguably destroying the DRM protections will have ripple effects on the for-profit software market. Do you contend otherwise?

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

Pretty much every change in law has some ripple effects on some for-profit market. Saying that therefore, an organization pushing for that change is somehow against making a profit in that market is just straw-manning it.

[6stringmerc]

Okay, I can follow how you interpret my statement. I'd like to clarify that what I was reaching for - and maybe missed - is establishing a "motive." As in, what is the "motive" to change the law? Is it completely altruistic? Is it capitalistic?

I'd like to think you'll grant me that the article is very one-sided, in that there's not a single mention of the arts industry's concerns with why they would fight so hard (almost psychotically hard) to establish and maintain the existence of DRM. Thus it felt, to me, extremely one-sided and, perhaps unwisely, I questioned the motive for such a framing.

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

> As in, what is the "motive" to change the law? Is it completely altruistic? Is it capitalistic?

Well, the motive probably varies person by person, but in any case probably can't really be reasonably summarized in a single word.

> I'd like to think you'll grant me that the article is very one-sided, in that there's not a single mention of the arts industry's concerns with why they would fight so hard (almost psychotically hard) to establish and maintain the existence of DRM.

Why should it not be one-sided? It's not like they are or pretend to be a neutral reporter. People from the "art industry" haven't exactly been known for presenting the EFF's and FSF's (and many others') arguments against DRM, and in particular against laws criminalizing the bypassing of DRM, have they?

> Thus it felt, to me, extremely one-sided and, perhaps unwisely, I questioned the motive for such a framing.

Well, nothing wrong with questioning it, I guess. I just don't see how you could then end up with the conclusion that it has something to do with the FSF disliking profit (or something to that effect), which is evidently not true.

Also, one very good reason for framing things a certain way is to challenge the prevailing framing. It's not exactly like the framing that's been established by the "art industry" is somehow neutral, after all.

[6stringmerc]

No, I understand, and I am no RIAA or Irving Azoff apologist. I want both sides to at least reconcile - in public - that they are at odds with one another and playing extensive PR games. I mean, I don't think we as a society, as voters, can make effective thoughts regarding compromise when simply being fired propaganda into opposite ears.

Or, to put it more bluntly, just because these entities can talk past one another doesn't mean they should do so. If they both act in this manner, should I just go ahead and give them both a pass?

The first "side," I think, to "rise above" the cherry-picking statistics and hyperbolic "negatives" will draw more support and eventually have the upper hand in negotiation. Not overnight. But cases like this try to sledgehammer something - to enact drastic change overnight - and in my opinion, that's not a prudent course of action with respect to most functions of Federal Law.

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

> Or, to put it more bluntly, just because these entities can talk past one another doesn't mean they should do so. If they both act in this manner, should I just go ahead and give them both a pass?

I don't really think them talking past each other is the fundamental problem. From all I can tell, the "digital freedom" side (for lack of a better label) generally understands pretty well the reasons for why some people want to have DRM, and they even address all of those reasons publicly if you go and look for it. But the "art industry" has a vested interest in ignoring all the arguments, and that, indeed, seems to be mostly about profit (and to some degree a lack of understanding of the technical possibilities and of their side effects). That's why a serious and productive argument between the two parties doesn't work, and why the "digital freedom" side is forced to use similar propaganda strategies to counter the unwillingness to even engage with the arguments on the other side.

As for whether you should give them both a pass: If you think that that's going to get you to the world that you want to live in?

> The first "side," I think, to "rise above" the cherry-picking statistics and hyperbolic "negatives" will draw more support and eventually have the upper hand in negotiation. Not overnight.

Well, one wishes.

> But cases like this try to sledgehammer something - to enact drastic change overnight - and in my opinion, that's not a prudent course of action with respect to most functions of Federal Law.

And yet, that's exactly what was done with the DMCA. It's not like the counter-arguments were invented after the DMCA was put in place. They were simply ignored, and the DMCA was, as you put it, sledgehammered into place.

[icebraining]

To the FSF, and many others like me, DRM is a violation of human freedom. The art industry's concerns are valid, but introducing them into the DRM debate makes as much sense as the dairy industry's concerns when discussing the adulteration of milk with melanin. The point is simply not up to discussion as far as we are concerned.

[6stringmerc]

Ah okay I'm not going to reach really deep down into the philosophical issues - I will give passing rebuttal that human freedom also includes "freedom from" in the notion that one's creative works should be protected from exploitation by another. Saying the industry's concerns are valid, yet claiming they have no voice in one of the basic, established mechanisms that addresses those concerns strikes me as an underwhelming dismissal. The concerns may be disagreeable, but to eliminate them from discussion does an immense disservice to the espoused goal - as in, not acknowledging the presence of a motivated, determined "foe" is like a horse wearing blinders. Sure, the direction can be established and focused upon, but it's getting hit by an unseen bus that can throw the whole course into disarray.