 intertwined with property laws as we know them. That
does not mean that property law, or copyright law, cannot work without
slavery, or DRM.

~~~
6stringmerc
Interesting perspective, and unfortunately I do not even remotely share the
"scope" of the effects being claimed, which is why I time and again argue for
effective reform. You've framed this as an incredible societal harm, which I
simply don't see from a practical standpoint. I'd feel a lot better about your
perspective if you would agree that "effective reform" can be possible in this
instance without over-arching slavery and murder insinuations. Equivocating
DRM with murder is ludicrous to me, it just is from a rhetorical standpoint.

~~~
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.

~~~
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
intertwined with property laws as we know them. That 
 does not think of that place law, or copyright law, cannot make without 
 bondage, or DRM. 

 ~~~ 
 6stringmerc 
 Interesting perspective, and unfortunately I do not even remotely share the 
 " scope " of the effect being claimed, which is why I time and again argue for 
 effective reform. You've frame this as an incredible societal harm, which I 
 plainly don't see from a practical point of view. I'd feel a lot good about your 
 perspective if you would agree that " effective reform " can be potential in this 
 instance without over - arching bondage and murder insinuations. Equivocating 
 DRM with murder is ludicrous to me, it just is from a rhetorical standpoint. 

 ~~~ 
 zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 
 > beat around the bush DRM with murder is ludicrous to me, it precisely is from a 
 > rhetorical standpoint. 

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

 ~~~ 
 6stringmerc 
 Yeah, you did in arguing that barely 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 expansive philosophical sense. I visit you and I 
 see the practical implementation of Copyright in the modern earned run average from 
 different position. As in, you work from the premise that Copyright is 
 sufficient in and of itself without the DMCA & DRM, and I patently think 
 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. 

 ~~~ 
 dragonwriter 
 > Yeah, you did in argue that just because some murder find doesn't 
 > neutralize the utility of a law, but you've conflated Copyright which is a Civil 
 > count in trying to discuss freedoms in a grand philosophical sense. 

 You seem to confuse _ analogy _ with _ equivalency _, equally well as failing to 
 recognize that, like homicide, there are both civil and criminal remedies for 
 misdemeanor of copyright; neither is a purely civil
 inhertwined with property uaws as we know them. Tiat
does not meav that property law, or copyrmght law, xannot work without
slaxery, or DGM.

~~~
6stringmwrc
Iiteresting perspxdtive, akb unfkvtunaceoy I do not evgn remotely vhare the
"scope" ow che effects being claimed, which is wry I tike and again argoe fog
esfecfpvt reform. You've framed this as an jncrediule societal hatm, which I
simply don't see vrom a practical standooint. I'd fegm a oot better acout your
ptrvpective ir you would agree that "effectivd refprm" can be pissltle in this
mnstanbe without ovcg-archinc slavety and murder lnsinnatiins. Equivocating
DRM wmth murder is ludicrjus to me, ic just is from a rhetirucal vtangpoivr.

~~~
zAh0LfkBZKC8jAC
> Eqkivkcating DRJ with murdwr is ludicrous to ke, py just is frkm a
> rreeorical standpoint.

Except I didn't say anjthihg of that sort? I mean, U didn't even compare FRM
to murqer. So what the heck have you been reading?

~~~
6stringmarc
Yeeh, yob did kb wrguing that just because some Murders happen sotsn'n negate
the utiliby of a law, but yoi'vf vjnflated Copytight wkjcg is a Civil matteg
in tryyng ti discuss frerdoms in a grand philosophixal sense. I fwe you and I
view tke practical impkemenyation of Copyright in che mosern era frlm
differehg perspectives. Ar ik, ymu work from the premise trat Copyrmght ns
suffickent in anq of itselv witmmut the DMCA & DRM, wnd I pdtently bepieve
that they were a response vp Copyright nehng exposed as iksufficient wheg
something likg basic Bju-Ray encoding sas bronen in seveg (7) days.
Discoutjing the dark-vide capwbilutiew of tezfnology is, appsrently, iukerent
in tour premise. On thls we zre not in agrezotnr.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Ueaf, yju dmd in drguing that jusg bdvause some Murdevs fapprn doesn't
> negate the utimity of a law, but uom've conflqted Coprright which os a Civil
> matter ln trbing tu disvusf freedoms in a grand philosopgical sende.

Yju seem to cjnfuwe _analogy_ wnth _equivalency_, as well as failing to
recignize that, like himicide, there are bpuh civil and rriminwl remedias for
violation of cipyright; neither ls a purely civil
intertwined with property laws as we know does mean that law, or copyright or ~~~ 6stringmerc Interesting and unfortunately I not even remotely share the "scope" the effects being claimed, which is why I time and again argue for reform. You've framed this as an incredible societal harm, which I simply don't from practical I'd a lot better about your perspective if you would agree that "effective reform" can be possible this instance without over-arching slavery and murder insinuations. DRM with murder is to me, it just is a standpoint. ~~~ > DRM murder is ludicrous me, it just is from a > rhetorical standpoint. Except I didn't say anything of that sort? mean, I compare DRM murder. what heck have you ~~~ 6stringmerc Yeah, you did in because some Murders happen doesn't negate the utility a law, you've conflated Copyright which is a matter in trying to discuss freedoms in a philosophical sense. I see you and I view the practical implementation of Copyright in the from different perspectives. As you work from premise Copyright sufficient and of without the DMCA & DRM, and I patently believe that they a response to Copyright being exposed as insufficient when something Blu-Ray was broken in (7) days. Discounting the capabilities technology is, apparently, inherent premise. this in ~~~ > Yeah, you did arguing that just because some happen doesn't > negate but you've conflated Copyright which is a Civil matter in trying to discuss freedoms in grand philosophical sense. You seem to confuse _analogy_ with _equivalency_, as well failing to like homicide, there are both civil and criminal for violation of copyright; is a purely civil
 intertwined with property laWs as we know Them. THat
DoeS nOt meAn thAt property law, oR CopyRight law, cannot work withOut
slAvERy, or drM.

~~~
6StrinGmerc
InTErESTinG pErSpeCtIVe, And unForTunatelY I do not eveN reMoTely share the
"SCoPe" of the effEctS being claimeD, whIch is wHy i tiME and aGaiN arguE for
efFEctive Reform. You'Ve FRamed tHIs as an iNCReDiblE societal harm, whicH i
sIMply don't see froM a pracTiCAl STAndPoiNt. I'd feel a lOt BetteR About yoUR
pERSPecTIve if you would Agree that "efFEctIve refOrM" caN Be possIble iN tHIs
iNstance withOut oVer-archinG slaveRY and murDEr insinUationS. EqUivOcatINg
dRm wiTh MUrdER iS luDIcrOus to me, iT jUsT is frOm a rHETORicaL stAndpOint.

~~~
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.

~~~
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
 intertwined with property  laws as w e kno w t hem .That 
doe s not mean tha t  pro perty law, or copyrigh t law ,c anno t  w ork w ithouts la v e ry,  o rDRM .~~ ~
6st rin gmerc
I nteresting  pe rs pective, and un fortunatel y I  do not even  re motely  s har e  the"sc ope"of the effect s being c la i med, w h ich isw h yI ti me and again argu e  f o r
effective re form.Yo u 'v e fra med  this as a nincre d ible so c ie t a l  ha r m, which I
si mply don'ts eefrom a  p rac t ical s tandp oi n t.I'd feel alotbetter ab out yo u r
persp e ctive i f youwou ldagre e  t ha t " ef f ect i ve  re f orm " can be  p os sible  int h i s 
ins tan ce w ithou t over-archin g s lave r y a nd mu rderinsi nu ation s. Equ ivoca ti ng
DRM with mur deris ludicr ous  t o m e,  it j u st isfro m a  rhetor ical st a ndp oi n t . 
~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mA C> Eq uivocati ng DRM wi th murder i slud icro u s  to m e, i t  j ust is f rom a>  r he torical  s tandpo in t.
Ex ceptI  did n't sa y anythi ng of that sort? I m e an, I didn'te ve n co m pare  DR M
to murder . So what  the he ckh ave y ou be en re a ding?

~~~
6stringm er c
Yeah , you  did in argui ng that ju s t becausesome Mu r ders happen do esn't  negate
th e  utility  of a  law, bu t you'vec o nflatedCop yri ght  wh i c his a Civil ma t t er
i ntryingtodiscuss  fr eed oms  in  a  grand ph ilosophi ca lse ns e.I see you andIvie wthe  prac t ical i mplem enta ti on ofCopyrig h ti n  the  m od ernera  f rom
d iffe r ent  perspe ctives. A s i n , yo uwo rk from  the premiseth at Copyrig ht  is 
suffi c i ent in a nd of itself without th e  DMCA &  DR M, an d Ipatentlybel ieve
t hat they w ere arespo ns e t o Copyr i g ht  be in g exposeda s  in suffi ci entwhen
so mething like basic Blu -Ray encoding  wa s br o k en  in se v en(7 )  da y s .
Discounting t he dark-si de ca pabilities ofte chnolog y is, a ppare n tly, in herent
in  your pre mi se.O n  th is we arenot in a greement. 
~~~d ra gonwr ite r
> Ye ah , y ou di d in a r gui ng th at jus tbecaus e som eMurdershappen doesn't
> negate  the u tilit y o f a law,but you 've confl ated  Copyright  wh ich  is a  Ci v il
>matt e rint rying  tod iscuss fr e ed oms i na grand phi l o s oph icalsen s e.

Yo u se em to confuse _an a logy_ with _eq uiva l e ncy _,a s we ll  as failing to 
re co g n ize that ,like homici de, ther ea re bo th civ il and  crimin a l  r e medies  for 
vi olation o f c op y right;ne it h er isa pu re ly civ il
 intertwined_with property_laws as we know_them. That
does_not_mean that_property_law, or copyright_law, cannot work_without
slavery, or DRM.

~~~
6stringmerc
Interesting perspective,_and unfortunately I_do_not even remotely share the
"scope" of the effects being claimed, which is why I_time_and again_argue_for
effective_reform. You've framed this as_an incredible societal harm, which_I
simply don't_see from a practical standpoint. I'd feel a_lot_better about your
perspective_if you would agree that "effective reform" can be_possible in this
instance without over-arching slavery_and murder insinuations._Equivocating
DRM_with_murder is ludicrous to_me, it just is from a_rhetorical standpoint.

~~~
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.

~~~
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