The mentioned repositories enable and encourage criminal behavior. And it’s quiet intentional. It’s because of piracy that we have DRM in the first place. The audacity now of pirates to wine about them not getting what they want like the entire world revolves just around them.
Format-shifting and time-shifting your legally acquired and licensed media is not illegal. If the DRM is preventing someone from doing that then it is within their rights to remove the DRM. Recall that not everyone lives in a country subject to the draconian DMCA law.
Are you serious right now? You can’t actually believe ordinary people will go out of their way to visit some random Github repository just to remove the DRM for their convenience. I guarantee you that 100% of contributers and users of that repo are doing piracy.
Baseless (and also wrong) assumption that piracy is responsible for by any means significant monetary losses aside, there are other reasons for bypassing that DRM bullshit. Like, off the top of my head:
archiving – when you don’t have a local copy of a piece of content, it can be changed or deleted at any time;
ability to access stuff on a wider range of devices – I want to be able watch my favorite coomtent creator in full resolution on my phone that has only L3 and quite outdated version of widevine without installing proprietary crapp, so what;
bypassing bullshit restrictions – not sure if onlyfans in particular does that, but we have Netflix, for example, that would tell you to fuck off when you’re not watching from home be it VPN or an actually different location when traveling.
They know all that. They want you to be able to only consume content the exact they they publish it.
That simplifies market analysis, removes the dilemma of supporting or not supporting some other way users want, and ideally selling the same thing a few times.
They want you to be able to only consume content the exact they they publish it.
And they have every right to do so. If you like it or not. You don’t own and have not created the protected content. On what basis are you deciding it should not be DRM protected?
On the basis of having bought it. If they haven’t sold it but made such an impression, then they’ve committed a crime.
When you are buying a cure against all problems with miniscule text saying it’s just a metaphor, the seller is committing a crime. It’s the same here.
Morally. Regardless of how courts interpret this right now. That feature that courts and practice officially do not equal morality and thus we can decide differently this time, if we can provide an explanation, is the main advantage of English legal system and those descended from it over others.
Btw, you don’t need to use whatever service you don’t own if you disagree with their practices. DRM is shit. But you’re not in any position to elevate yourself above that. You don’t own the services and you have not contributed in creating the protected content. You have no right to decide anything.
Agreed to disagree then. IMO, if a company thinks it’s OK to throw me over the dick hiding behind being afraid of shadows, deny me access to legally obtained content on my devices, walk back on previous deals, and so on, then I have no problem with getting unrestricted access to stuff they decided I don’t technically own. Fuck the fucker, simple as that.
By subscribing you agree to a contract. The company is doing no shitty practice since everything is black and white in the contract. You just don’t like the contract. But the consequence should be to not sign it.
The contract states you don’t own it and they can take it away any time. So why are you stupid to sign it? Buy a physical book if you don’t like it. But there is no justification for piracy like “I don’t get exactly what I want so I now decide that I have the moral right to do whatever I want with indefinitely.”
You’re working for the same corpos and you’re getting payed. You’re part of the system and you’re profiting off it. We get rid of DRM tomorrow but you get a 20% salary reduction. Would you do it? I think you wouldn’t. So why would they? You guys are pretentious and can’t think past the simplest complexities of an economic system.
The only jobs I’ve ever had were teaching and nursing, both paid by the country I live in, not some private entity. I don’t even own a car or a TV, nor do I live in the US for that matter.
Get your head out of your ass and realise there’s more to life than fucking money. I was born poor and will die poor, but I don’t give a shit because I at least know I helped some people along the way.
Jfc, the bubble some live in. You should be ashamed of yourself, but I guess you’re not even capable of that, are ya?
The mentioned repositories enable and encourage criminal behavior. And it’s quiet intentional. It’s because of piracy that we have DRM in the first place. The audacity now of pirates to wine about them not getting what they want like the entire world revolves just around them.
Format-shifting and time-shifting your legally acquired and licensed media is not illegal. If the DRM is preventing someone from doing that then it is within their rights to remove the DRM. Recall that not everyone lives in a country subject to the draconian DMCA law.
Are you serious right now? You can’t actually believe ordinary people will go out of their way to visit some random Github repository just to remove the DRM for their convenience. I guarantee you that 100% of contributers and users of that repo are doing piracy.
Baseless (and also wrong) assumption that piracy is responsible for by any means significant monetary losses aside, there are other reasons for bypassing that DRM bullshit. Like, off the top of my head:
They know all that. They want you to be able to only consume content the exact they they publish it.
That simplifies market analysis, removes the dilemma of supporting or not supporting some other way users want, and ideally selling the same thing a few times.
And they have every right to do so. If you like it or not. You don’t own and have not created the protected content. On what basis are you deciding it should not be DRM protected?
morally, no. cartoon mouse says, yes.
deleted by creator
On the basis of having bought it. If they haven’t sold it but made such an impression, then they’ve committed a crime.
When you are buying a cure against all problems with miniscule text saying it’s just a metaphor, the seller is committing a crime. It’s the same here.
Morally. Regardless of how courts interpret this right now. That feature that courts and practice officially do not equal morality and thus we can decide differently this time, if we can provide an explanation, is the main advantage of English legal system and those descended from it over others.
Also baseless assumptions.
Btw, you don’t need to use whatever service you don’t own if you disagree with their practices. DRM is shit. But you’re not in any position to elevate yourself above that. You don’t own the services and you have not contributed in creating the protected content. You have no right to decide anything.
Agreed to disagree then. IMO, if a company thinks it’s OK to throw me over the dick hiding behind being afraid of shadows, deny me access to legally obtained content on my devices, walk back on previous deals, and so on, then I have no problem with getting unrestricted access to stuff they decided I don’t technically own. Fuck the fucker, simple as that.
By subscribing you agree to a contract. The company is doing no shitty practice since everything is black and white in the contract. You just don’t like the contract. But the consequence should be to not sign it.
Yeah, right. Because those contracts are set in stone, and our corporate overlords won’t ever take away the advertised ability to download books you’ve paid for, not to mention those very contracts being written in human-readable format and not lawyer speak. \s
The contract states you don’t own it and they can take it away any time. So why are you stupid to sign it? Buy a physical book if you don’t like it. But there is no justification for piracy like “I don’t get exactly what I want so I now decide that I have the moral right to do whatever I want with indefinitely.”
Unconscionability says otherwise.
Yea you’re above the law and everyone else. I’ve hear this plenty of times.
You are the one who elevates random terms of service above the law just because both parties “agreed” to them, not me.
Bypassing DRM isn’t criminal behaviour.
Your whole series of posts in this thread are seriously unhinged. Are you trying to cosplay a corpo bootlicker or something?
It’s either that or you’ve been born wealthy enough to never have to think about the money you spend.
You’re working for the same corpos and you’re getting payed. You’re part of the system and you’re profiting off it. We get rid of DRM tomorrow but you get a 20% salary reduction. Would you do it? I think you wouldn’t. So why would they? You guys are pretentious and can’t think past the simplest complexities of an economic system.
The only jobs I’ve ever had were teaching and nursing, both paid by the country I live in, not some private entity. I don’t even own a car or a TV, nor do I live in the US for that matter.
Get your head out of your ass and realise there’s more to life than fucking money. I was born poor and will die poor, but I don’t give a shit because I at least know I helped some people along the way.
Jfc, the bubble some live in. You should be ashamed of yourself, but I guess you’re not even capable of that, are ya?