Re: [libreplanet-discuss] DRM is a real problem

[Fabio Pesari]

On 02/20/2016 04:16 PM, J.B. Nicholson wrote:
>
> That strikes me as a matter of taste and siding with power; you won't find 
> Magnatune's artists or work on the more widely-advertised label releases 
> either. I find it more valuable to figure out what I like by listening to 
> the music for myself.

I don't think it's a matter of taste or siding with power; it is
undeniable that some bands who created nonfree music have significantly
influenced the history of popular music.

Can you name a non-obscure pop (post 1930s) genre which hasn't been
invented by an artist playing nonfree music?

> I fail to understand what this has to do with the topic of discussion. This 
> reads to me as a digression which tries to subtly position more popular 
> artists as somehow better than less popular artists without acknowledging 
> how derivative artists in general are. I think a better discussion would 
> convey how derivation is at the heart of everything humans do, how the 
> popular label system is corrupt in that it over rewards the more popular 
> artists, and how assessing artist's worth is not valuable to this discussion.

I changed the topic exactly because it had little to do with the
previous discussion.

I was merely saying that opposing DRM might make sense when we are
talking about public stuff (libraries, schools, etc.) but when we're
talking about cultural stuff that belongs to someone else (like films
and music), it's useless because if you want to play their game, you
have to accept their rules, however unfair the might be.

> Until you mentioned this twice (once above and once at the end of your 
> post), nobody said one had to or would "only listen to music released on 
> Magnatune". That is a false dichotomy. However you bring up a point which 
> (perhaps inadvertently) puts Magnatune in a better light -- unlike so many 
> of the more widely-advertised labels, Magnatune doesn't require exclusivity.

Sure, it does not require exclusivity. Still, it costs money, and I feel
that money would be better spent on libre music. That's my personal
opinion, by the way!

> I don't know who you're replying to here, but it's not me. Your post you 
> made it seem like I wrote "Everyone has the right freely to participate in 
> the cultural life of the
> community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its
> benefits.". I did not write that and you didn't credit who did write that.

I said I was quoting Article 27.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, perhaps you missed it.

> To respond to your point: DRM is a problem for me because I don't run the 
> nonfree software needed to get past the DRM in the manner proscribed by the 
> publisher. Laws prohibiting breaking DRM (even for personal use or fair use 
> purposes) are often part of copyright legislation. Therefore a lot of the 
> well-advertised distributors don't allow me to partake of their work 
> without accepting what could be malware. I find that tradeoff to be 
> completely unacceptable and I blame them for putting that potential malware 
> in my way nor do I buy any of the defenses about how unnamed copyright 
> holders might balk at having DRM-free distribution to paying customers.

But this is where I see the issue:

> Therefore a lot of the well-advertised distributors don't allow me to
> partake of their work without accepting what could be malware. I find
> that tradeoff to be

Why should they? It's their stuff, and if they want to distribute it
using DRM, it's their right to do it. This is actually article 27.2 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which ironically is at odds
with article 27.1 in DRM's case!

> I believe most popular label artist's copyrights aren't held by the artist, 
> I believe that copyright is signed over to the label when the artist/band 
> signs a contract with the label. Janis Ian is a notable exception; I 
> believe she bought the copyright to her recordings and now holds the 
> copyright on them. It would benefit the argument for copyright reform to 
> frame the debate in terms of how most media is licensed.

So, following the previous example, the copyright on Miles Davis tracks
could last _forever_. Isn't that a bigger problem than DRM, considering
that if they were in the public domain, they could be legally
distributed DRM-free?