A Joke About DRM in Pictures

Some people will never understand the internet or the potential for it to become the tool by which we come together as a species, or whatevs. In any event, I post some pictures of the DRM future that just may be on the horizon if Fair Use goes the way some groups want Net Neutrality to go. Some masterpieces are just totally inappropriate for sensitive eyes and ears. And by sensitive, I don’t mean children, I mean those religious loons of all sorts that can not abide seeing their icons portrayed in a way that differs from their own personal vision. apple silicone battery case iphone 6 The irony of idolatry is lost on so many.Dead christ Whoah now, Jesus. You may be dead and all but bulges are not allowed. David Modded Here we have given David a sporty little bathing suit as befits the style of the time. iphone 8 rubber case front and back We encourage future generations to alter their internet archives to upgrade the banana hammock to a full pair of shorts and eventually to a suit that exposes only the most modest toes and fingers. Proportions It was about time someone gave this man a pair of shades and a set of nuthuggers. Some of you may wonder about the exact point of this seemingly fucking lame post. claires phone cases iphone 6 These icons of enlightenment and so many others are really, really old. Like older than your mom old. silicon apple iphone 6 case The actual generations of the future will likely only ever see them as flickering images on their eyelids or super-duper High Definition 3-d televisions, provided they aren’t too busy watching Ow My Balls. Hell, I’ve never seen anything by Da Vinci in real life. iphone 8 case peach I have seen replicas and stuff in travelling museums by him and other masters of art, but I’ve never experienced the majesty of the Sistene Chapel, experienced the enigma of Mona Lisa, the Hidden City, Ankor Wat, those nifty churches and citadels carved into the living rock in Ethiopia or the School of Athens. I have seen videos of the results of religious fanatics that destroy icons that don’t fit their view of the world. iphone 7 plus case dog I have seen great works of stone and iron destroyed by those that refuse to allow others to coexist. Some of you might think I am exagerrating the situation but I say, Free and Fair or Fuck it. If we can’t let the greatest acheivement of our species unleash it’s full potential, we might as well burn it like we did the Library of Alexandria or the Library of Celsus. We certainly haven’t learned anything in the last 2000 years.

10 thoughts on “A Joke About DRM in Pictures”

  1. There’s a difference between DRM and censorship/sanitation of the media. What’s interesting in the film space is that DRM is arguably being used to prevent censorship (at least at the disc level).

    I’m pretty sure that the MPAA has won court battles against companies that sell copies of movies (that they made from individually purchased copies of the original works) that edit out the ‘offensive’ material by using some DMCA provided rights.

    I appreciate the fact that they’re working to make sure that other people aren’t selling versions of someone else’s work and that they may be using DRM to prevent that. I disagree with this stance (DRM can’t really stop anyone in the end) and I think that the MPAA is abusing the DMCA if it did in fact stop these shops (even though I agree with the outcome, I’m not comfortable with the means). The more I think about it though, the more I think that maybe it was just standard copyright law that led to their victory in these cases. More research may be necessary.

    Assuming it was the DMCA that was used in this case then the DRM and the censorship are on opposite sides. I suppose you could argue that the MPAA is ‘censoring’ the people who are creating derivative works that simply removing portions of an original work, but I’d have a hard time agreeing with that.

    Still, censorship has nothing to do with ones ability to reproduce works for their own personal use. This post seems to argue that DRM is the same thing as placing black bars over pieces of art and I think it’s misleading to commingle the two arguments.

  2. from chat with dEn

    me: ok, I’m trying one more time
    He’s claiming the internet is one of mankinds great achievements — like the other images included in the post
    limiting Fair Use limits the power of the internet analogous to the way censoring limits the power of these works of art

    me: it’s the second paragraph that ruins it though, you are right

  3. Also, it includes a note that circumvention is allowed “to skip past … personally objectionable content in an audiovisual work.” Will this allow more online stores that cater to individuals who would like to edit out certain sections of works and sell them online? Are we allowing people to continue to neuter works of art to fit their personal taste?

    It is this section of your very informative post that I was repsonding to about the FAIR USE legislation.

  4. I missed fulsome’s comment the first time around.

    The second paragraph refers to the sort of people that are the sort, and have proven to be, to censor things they find objectionable. The conservative elements of our society are far louder, and so far more succesful, in their attempts to censor media under the guise of tolerance for their views and their views alone. Look at the attacks on the NEA and the near-constant screaming about a work of poorly written fiction (The Da Vinci Code).

  5. Ok, so if I were to clarify the first sentence for my own understanding:

    Some people will never understand the internet or the potential for it to become the tool by which we come together as a species, or whatevs. In any event, I post some pictures of the future that allows the removal of ‘objectionable content’ from digital media. Something that may be possible this new DRM law passes in the way some groups want Net Neutrality to pass.

  6. yeah, just fyi, the full paragraph for that section I was referencing earlier is: “The prohibition contained in subparagraph (a) shall not apply to an act of circumvention that is carried out solely for the purpose of enabling a person to skip past or to avoid commercial or personally objectionable content in an audiovisual work.”

    I’m not entirely sure what is meant by ‘personally objectionable’ and I’m not sure whether this would allow those places that sell videos with edited-out content.

    I’m kind of unclear on why they need to specify what particular reasons are acceptable for fast-forwarding though.

    Consider this example situation:

    Them: You can only fast forward if it’s an advertisement or you personally object to it.

    Viewer: Wait, I can’t fast forward just because I’m kind of bored and watching the whole thing before I get to the next action scene would be less than fun?

    Them: No. That is not an acceptable reason to break DRM.

  7. I know South Park references are passe but I imagine that going with an Eric Cartman voice, “no, kitty, those are my pot pies.”

Comments are closed.