[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

By the way, something to think about regarding your suggested solution to the "John Deere problem":

John Deere will simply start selling smart tractors. You know, a large machine with a strong motor and everything. And with a computer controlling it. But without any software. Or with only very basic software. You cannot actually do anything useful with it unless you install some tractor apps. Which you can licence. From John Deere. So, what have you gained? Or do you have any workaround for this that does not entail abolishing DRM?

[6stringmerc]

The workaround is to buy a Kubota or a Lamborghini or another equally suitable brand without the knee capping. Is this not a reasonable market-forces-problem-solving perspective?

Also, just to belabor the point, once a person purchases the John Deere under First Sale Doctrine they are completely entitled to replacing the computer with a third-party controller. Thus, that's Fair Use of the vehicle one purchased. Legally, in this context, John Deere can not claim that DRM was circumvented because the rights were terminated upon sale of the physical item.

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

> The workaround is to buy a Kubota or a Lamborghini or another equally suitable brand without the knee capping. Is this not a reasonable market-forces-problem-solving perspective?

Why is it a problem at all then? Doesn't this option to buy a different product exist currently?

> Also, just to belabor the point, once a person purchases the John Deere under First Sale Doctrine they are completely entitled to replacing the computer with a third-party controller. Thus, that's Fair Use of the vehicle one purchased. Legally, in this context, John Deere can not claim that DRM was circumvented because the rights were terminated upon sale of the physical item.

Well, there is actually a huge pile of problems buried here. Namely, the pile of problems that proponents of DRM tend to not understand. Or to not even be aware of.

Are you saying that only replacing the computer would be allowed? Is it crucial that the computer is swapped out? Or is the computer also part of the machine that you own, so you should also be allowed to modify the computer itself however you like? I'd like to understand where you think the line should be drawn between what pieces of the physical thing that you buy that you are allowed to modify as you like, and which pieces are off limits, if any?

Also, it would be helpful if you could give some short indication of what you know about the inner workings of computers and software, so I don't end up explaining stuff to you way above or way below your level. Do you know some assembly? Digital circuitry basics? Theoretical computer science/halting problem? Complexity theory basics? Cryptography?

[6stringmerc]

My first computing experience was with the Mac 512k at age 5. I grew up in an Apple household and then discovered how behind I was with not knowing DOS. We became a Windows household in the age of Dell vs. Gateway PCs. I learned how to work on machines, replace hardware, work through software conflicts, and got a job at 16 working in a small office making broken things into Frakenstein boxes. Taught myself HTML from books. I can whistle the 28.8 modem handshake from memory. Went from QBasic to C++ using the Borland compiler. Went to University on a CS scholarship and hated having to work in Unix and play with algorithms instead of focus on modern skills. So I quit and went over to English, and turned my attention to using my technology skills to enjoy the burgeoning and blossoming nature of computer assisted art.

Honestly I don't care for your thinking that you're going to explain anything to me, because it's obvious that my attempts to explain artistic creator perspectives are follies.

So, in turn, it'd be helpful if you could give a short indication of what your creative experience is to set a parity of baseline: Have you published a creative work? What instruments do you play? How good are you at drawing? Have you ever been on a film set, professional or otherwise? How have you distributed your creations? How much have you made from them?

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

> Honestly I don't care for your thinking that you're going to explain anything to me, because it's obvious that my attempts to explain artistic creator perspectives are follies.

Well, if you don't actually care to understand, why pretend so in the first place?

Also, I don't really see you explaining much so far? Though I suspect there wouldn't even be all that much disagreement on my part with the problems that you see.

> So, in turn, it'd be helpful if you could give a short indication of what your creative experience is to set a parity of baseline [...]

I think I'll skip this simply because I don't see the relevance. Just assume that all answers are no/none. Or explain how it's relevant to the discussion at hand.

Now, you skipped the most important part, didn't you? Where do you draw the line with the smart tractor that I bought? I didn't ask for your level of knowledge to get into a competition, but in order to be able to make myself understood to you. But if you don't say anything that I could respond to, what's the point?

[6stringmerc]

None? None. So we have no common ground. I have some from your platform, and you have none from mine. To accuse me of not willing to engage or understand is, to me, hypocritical.

I guess we just have a failure to communicate. We'll just have to wait and see and maybe re-visit these threads after this case is settled. I've done more than my fair share of explication and noticed some kind of gap that neither you nor I are willing to bridge for whatever reasons. Good day to you Madam or Sir.

[zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC]

> None? None. So we have no common ground.

Is that how you conduct discussions with people from outside your field(s)? You might be more successful if you are willing to find common ground outside your immediate field of expertise. Also, I told you I was willing to reconsider if you were to show how my personal experience in that area is relevant to the discussion.

> I've done more than my fair share of explication

No, actually, you haven't. I don't know whether you maybe have elsewhere in this thread, but in your responses to me you did indeed not explain your position particularly much. You have to some degree in your medium article, and I was willing to build on that.

> and noticed some kind of gap that neither you nor I are willing to bridge for whatever reasons.

Really, it seems to me that it's only you who isn't willing to entertain just for the sake of understanding the arguments of the other side the idea that maybe they indeed have thought this all through, that they are aware of your arguments, and that they have reasons to reject them after all.

I would be more than happy to be shown that DRM and the criminalization of DRM bypassing is indeed not a big problem, as that could solve a lot of problems with ensuring fair compensation for creative works, which is a big problem that the digitalization of the world has brought. Unfortunately, I can't really recognize any effort on your part to bring forward any arguments to that effect. Instead, it seems to me that you are utterly unwilling to reconsider your own position, and as a result don't even understand what you are arguing against, which only compounds the ineffectiveness of your arguments.

If you want to make yourself understood, you have to be willing to seriously question your own position, and you have to assume that the other party is not trying to sabotage the conversation if there is any chance to do so. And you have to try and avoid sabotaging it at all cost yourself.