[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.