[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

> Equivocating DRM with murder is ludicrous to me, it just is from a rhetorical standpoint.

Except I didn't say anything of that sort? I mean, I didn't even compare DRM to murder. So what the heck have you been reading?

[6stringmerc]

Yeah, you did in arguing that just because some Murders happen doesn't negate the utility of a law, but you've conflated Copyright which is a Civil matter in trying to discuss freedoms in a grand philosophical sense. I see you and I view the practical implementation of Copyright in the modern era from different perspectives. As in, you work from the premise that Copyright is sufficient in and of itself without the DMCA & DRM, and I patently believe that they were a response to Copyright being exposed as insufficient when something like basic Blu-Ray encoding was broken in seven (7) days. Discounting the dark-side capabilities of technology is, apparently, inherent in your premise. On this we are not in agreement.

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

> Yeah, you did in arguing that just because some Murders happen doesn't negate the utility of a law

OK. Your claim was that I equivocated DRM and murders. So, given what you are saying here, that would mean that I have said something to the effect that "just because some DRM happens, doesn't negate the utility of (copyright?) law"? Could you please provide a citation of where I said that?

See, I would be happy to discuss your actual arguments, but I won't even try if you insist on strawmanning my position.

Also, if you want this discussion to go anywhere, I expect that you refrain from derailing it by insisting on discussing form over content. If you understand an analogy, I expect you to discuss based on what you understood, instead of starting a discussion on how I should have expressed my argument to make you like its form better. I write what I write in order to be understood. Analogies aren't perfect, that's what makes them analogies. The point of an analogy is to show commonalities, despite all differences. If you understand an analogy, it has served its purpose, and any argument as to how I should have expressed myself instead therefore is completely pointless and only serves to derail the discussion. If you actually don't understand what I mean to say, ask, and I'll be happy to try and explain. If you disagree with the content, explain why you disagree with the content.

[dragonwriter]

> Yeah, you did in arguing that just because some Murders happen doesn't negate the utility of a law, but you've conflated Copyright which is a Civil matter in trying to discuss freedoms in a grand philosophical sense.

You seem to confuse analogy with equivalency, as well as failing to recognize that, like homicide, there are both civil and criminal remedies for violation of copyright; neither is a purely civil or purely criminal matter.

[6stringmerc]

How is using Murder, the taking of another's life, in any way a suitable analogy to Copying a file/song/film without permission? They're completely different ballparks and to do so is a form of equivalency - more like equivocation, as I mentioned - because the harms are so drastically different. It only takes one Murder to be convicted of a Criminal offense and sent to Prison - there is a significantly higher bar[1] before Copyright Infringement is remotely similar to the nature of the reference point. I mean, I get the basic underlying philosophy being argued but I disagree with it. Talking about Copyright and Murder in the same sentence, I will reiterate, is rhetorically off-base.

A much more reasonable line of "analogy" (which it wasn't) would have been talking about Theft and Copyright Infringement have disparate parameters on the books, and therefore expose the over-reach of Copyright. I frequently sense that because I'm not "pro-freedom" in the definition of those who disagree with me that I'm somehow on the other side. I'm most definitely not and it is quite tiring to feel such derision when I'm not a Partisan - I'm a goddamn Independent.

[1] http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Piracy-Puts-People-in-Pri...

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

> Discounting the dark-side capabilities of technology is, apparently, inherent in your premise.

This, BTW, pretty much betrays that you don't understand the arguments of the other side at all.

The core of the opposition to DRM and in particular to the criminalization of the bypassing of DRM is precisely because of the dark-side capabilities of technology.

There are more dark sides to technology than the ones that you are considering. It's not that people aren't aware of the dark sides that you are thinking of. It's not even that they don't care about them. It's that they think that the other dark sides are way, way scarier in their long-term consequences.

edit: typo