|
|
|
|
|
|
by 6stringmerc
3598 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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.