129: Content Protection - Revision history

42.book.addict: added Category:DRM using HotCat

2025-01-22T18:09:52Z

added Category:DRM using HotCat

Jacky720: rv

2022-05-04T21:08:12Z

Show changes

Ex Kay Cee Dee at 21:08, 4 May 2022

2022-05-04T21:08:07Z

Show changes

Davidy22: Reverted edits by X. K. C. D. (talk) to last revision by 172.68.226.177

2022-05-04T01:45:51Z

Reverted edits by X. K. C. D. (talk) to last revision by 172.68.226.177

Show changes

X. K. C. D. at 01:11, 4 May 2022

2022-05-04T01:11:49Z

Show changes

172.68.226.177: /* Explanation */

2022-02-04T19:09:05Z

‎Explanation

172.68.226.223: he's referring a specific book, not the whole movement

2022-02-04T19:08:24Z

he's referring a specific book, not the whole movement

Alcazar84 at 13:09, 4 June 2020

2020-06-04T13:09:14Z

108.162.221.227: Apparently, the citation needed tag template doesn't exist on this wiki.

2018-01-20T23:09:15Z

Apparently, the citation needed tag template doesn't exist on this wiki.

108.162.221.227: Changed a tag to the more proper [citation needed] format.

2018-01-20T23:08:25Z

Changed a tag to the more proper [citation needed] format.

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:09, 22 January 2025
Line 30:		Line 30:
	{{comic discussion}}		{{comic discussion}}
	[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]		[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
		+	[[Category:DRM]]

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 With the title text, [[Randall]] is referring again to {{w|Digital rights management|DRM}}. The {{w|Students for Free Culture|Free Culture}} movement ({{w|Lawrence Lessig}} being one of their activists) is fighting for free content. DRM advocates claim that their technology "protects" artists by preventing piracy, while in reality, DRM is more effective as a means of giving media companies control over devices than it is at preventing piracy.
-Chapters 13 and 14 of the {{w|Free Culture (book)#Chapter_13._Eldred|Free Culture book}} by Lawrence Lessig concern {{w|Eldred v. Ashcroft}}, 537 U.S. 186 (2003), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States upholding the constitutionality of the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA). The practical result of this was to prevent a number of works from entering the public domain in 1998 and following years, as would have occurred under the Copyright Act of 1976. Lessig was a lead council in this case. In his opinion he lost the case because his arguments were about culture instead of the economy.
+Chapters 13 and 14 of the {{w|Free Culture (book)#Chapter_13._Eldred|Free Culture}} book by Lawrence Lessig concern {{w|Eldred v. Ashcroft}}, 537 U.S. 186 (2003), a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States upholding the constitutionality of the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA). The practical result of this was to prevent a number of works from entering the public domain in 1998 and following years, as would have occurred under the Copyright Act of 1976. Lessig was a lead council in this case. In his opinion he lost the case because his arguments were about culture instead of the economy.
 The structure of current law makes it exceedingly difficult for someone who might want to do something with an old work to find the copyright owner, because no central list exists. Because these old works no longer seem commercially viable to the copyright holder, many are deteriorating.

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:08, 4 February 2022
Line 14:		Line 14:

	With the title text, [[Randall]] is referring again to {{w\|Digital rights management\|DRM}}. The {{w\|Students for Free Culture\|Free Culture}} movement ({{w\|Lawrence Lessig}} being one of their activists) is fighting for free content. DRM advocates claim that their technology "protects" artists by preventing piracy, while in reality, DRM is more effective as a means of giving media companies control over devices than it is at preventing piracy.		With the title text, [[Randall]] is referring again to {{w\|Digital rights management\|DRM}}. The {{w\|Students for Free Culture\|Free Culture}} movement ({{w\|Lawrence Lessig}} being one of their activists) is fighting for free content. DRM advocates claim that their technology "protects" artists by preventing piracy, while in reality, DRM is more effective as a means of giving media companies control over devices than it is at preventing piracy.
		+
		+	Chapters 13 and 14 of the {{w\|Free Culture (book)#Chapter_13._Eldred\|Free Culture book}} by Lawrence Lessig concern {{w\|Eldred v. Ashcroft}}, 537 U.S. 186 (2003), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States upholding the constitutionality of the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA). The practical result of this was to prevent a number of works from entering the public domain in 1998 and following years, as would have occurred under the Copyright Act of 1976. Lessig was a lead council in this case. In his opinion he lost the case because his arguments were about culture instead of the economy.
		+	The structure of current law makes it exceedingly difficult for someone who might want to do something with an old work to find the copyright owner, because no central list exists. Because these old works no longer seem commercially viable to the copyright holder, many are deteriorating.
		+
		+	In chapter 14 Lessig uses the disproportionate number of HIV and AIDS victims in Africa and other poor countries to further his argument that the current control of intellectual property—in this case, patents to HIV drugs—defy "common sense."

	==Transcript==		==Transcript==

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 In addition to illustrating the absurdity of HDCP, the comic presents the darker idea that when your devices control what information you are exposed to, the controlling companies can act as "{{w|thought police}}" and ensure that your mind only contains "approved content."
-With the title text, [[Randall]] is referring again to {{w|Digital rights management|DRM}}. The {{w|Students for Free Culture|Free Culture}} movement ({{w|Lawrence Lessig}} being one of their activists) is fighting for free content. DRM advocates claim that their technology "protects" artists by preventing piracy, while in reality DRM is more effective as a means of giving media companies control over devices than it is at preventing piracy.
+With the title text, [[Randall]] is referring again to {{w|Digital rights management|DRM}}. The {{w|Students for Free Culture|Free Culture}} movement ({{w|Lawrence Lessig}} being one of their activists) is fighting for free content. DRM advocates claim that their technology "protects" artists by preventing piracy, while in reality, DRM is more effective as a means of giving media companies control over devices than it is at preventing piracy.
 ==Transcript==
@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 :The cable is labeled with "Approved connection"
 :The HDMI box is labeled with "Approved player"
-:Megan's head is labeled with "Approved content".]
+:Megan's head is labeled with "Approved content"]
 {{comic discussion}}
 [[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 In addition to illustrating the absurdity of HDCP, the comic presents the darker idea that when your devices control what information you are exposed to, the controlling companies can act as "{{w|thought police}}" and ensure that your mind only contains "approved content."
-With the title text, [[Randall]] is referring again to {{w|Digital rights management|DRM}}. The {{w|Students for Free Culture|Free Culture}} movement ({{w|Lawrence Lessig}} being one of their activists) is fighting for free content. DRM advocates claim that their technology "protects" artists by preventing piracy, while in reality DRM is more effective as a means of giving media companies control over devices than it is at preventing piracy.{{citation needed}}
+With the title text, [[Randall]] is referring again to {{w|Digital rights management|DRM}}. The {{w|Students for Free Culture|Free Culture}} movement ({{w|Lawrence Lessig}} being one of their activists) is fighting for free content. DRM advocates claim that their technology "protects" artists by preventing piracy, while in reality DRM is more effective as a means of giving media companies control over devices than it is at preventing piracy.
 ==Transcript==