Remember when NFTs sold for millions of dollars? 95% of the digital collectibles are now probably worthless.::NFTs had a huge bull run two years ago, with billions of dollars per month in trading volume, but now most have crashed to zero, a study found.

  • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    DRM =/= fair to the consumer.

    DRM as a concept seeks to limit your digital rights. Any DRM of any kind is a form of punishment to the consumer. You bought it, it should be yours to do with in perpetuity as you please.

    • Heavybell@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      DRM could be fair to the consumer, it just isn’t in the interests of the publishers to make it so, and as a result the versions of it we have are not fair to the consumer.

    • astral_avocado@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      What about the rights of the creator and fair compensation? That argument alone is driving the entire backlash against AI and AI created art whereby people’s work was read and incorporated in some level without restriction, why not here too?

          • dustyData@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            People can buy multiple copies if so they wish to. Most digital sellers are perfectly happy to charge you multiple times for things you technically already own. Artificial scarcity by way of limiting a digital good is unethical.

            • astral_avocado@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I was under the impression that the main point of DRM was to prevent blanket copying of a product and sharing with others who haven’t purchased said product.

              • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                If I buy an e-book I should be able to read it on any device I want. If I purchase software I should be able to install it and use it on as many devices I own that I want.

                • 小莱卡@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  it really do be as simple as that. computers made data effortless to reproduce and distribute yet people are unironically against it because publishers don’t get to profit off every single copy.

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You can’t buy a book, print off a ton of copies, and then sell those copies. You can do whatever you want with your book, lend out, give it away, but you’re not allowed to profit off it.

          • merc@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sure you are. You’re allowed to sell it to a book store, and if it’s somehow more valuable than what you paid when you bought it, you profit.

      • query@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        We should worry more about what corporations are doing with people’s work, than what individuals are doing with what they’ve paid for.

        Or simply, if someone’s profiting off of someone else’s work, then worry about the rules.

        • astral_avocado@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I guess this is kind of my point. The general left consensus on copyrights, creator’s content, DRM, and AI is not founded a position of principles, it’s foundation is seemingly only what serves the end goal which is whatever is perceived to help middle/lower class the most.

          Which of course I can totally get down with, but I just resent that everyone covers their arguments as if it’s coming from a principled idea when in actuality they hold little principles on the matter and just want an end goal.

          • query@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Copyright only exists to serve society, to promote the creation of content. It’s not about restricting anything, other than as far as it helps more people create, more creation happen. Corporations stomping on individuals does not promote creation.

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        What about the rights of the creator and fair compensation

        That’s why you get paid up front for your work.