?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Messenger Icon

Important enough to try again

I greatly dislike being misunderstood. Even more so being irritating. For that I apologize Greg. I had assumed my arguments were straightforward and predictable; if I was irritating enough, perhaps it would make for a pause for thought as to why. Apparently not - that disappoints me. I thought I had earned a better reputation. Really, why would I agree and yet passionately attempt to disagree? I hope I don't seem that much of an imbecilic jackass to frustrate for fun. Perhaps not everyone argues for a goal or purpose, as opposed to concrete conclusions.

So, given time to think and sort, here's my point, spelled out. I could not articulate it before for time constraints and reasons explained at the end. Looking back, I attempted to convey this as best I could, which shows my manifold shortcomings in speech. Nate was the only one who caught onto at least part of my goal. Here it is:

We often forget that systems have many stable points, and often these are not at desired points. The system must be jarred to knock it into a different state. This happens to systems of all types.
Thus we leap to the topic of digital rights management. Clearly, a cursory overview will show that, should trends continue, little good will result of this.
There is an absolutely fundamental flaw in this that is summarily disregarded by most. That is that trends often do not continue through extremes unscathed. The current situation is reaching an extreme. This is bad, but let's look at it from an alternate perspective. This is, of course, of the necessary evil.
Why would it be necessary? Look back to how most preventative stop-gaps are put in place - something goes wrong. Really, it takes a disaster before people are willing to institute some common sense for the greater good. Examples that ought to come to mind are fire codes and monopoly laws.
Even if the problem is over-regulation, the principle is unchanged. This is it:
Major imbalances are frequently met with reactionary corrective measures. These may not be fast acting, but there is always a reactionary force; also, and apparently not as obviously as I thought, reactions need something to which react. Great changes require great force against greatly entrenched problems, and thus great reactions are required.
Thus I contend that the copyright system is gearing up for a reactionary shift. Due to how entrenched the problem is, this will not be simple, and too many ideals are at conflict to be resolved quickly. Too, many do not recognize the system as broken, and thus the reaction will be slow in coming.
Notably, a reaction is forming. Many are attempting to create alternatives, and if the DMCA is as broken as it seems, it really ought to fail. Really, it's completely unenforceable short of getting thrown back in time 100 years - this is patently obvious. Too, there are enterprises that would not likely have formed if there was no need for some counter effort, or they would have taken longer for their utility to be understood and thus implemented.

Hopefully, the above makes my earlier statements make sense - they should. For the record, when I say I am purposefully obfuscating, I am canceling specifics to show that boundary conditions are not the issue - blur from specifics to generalities, general cases for regrouping. I assumed this was obvious, since I rarely talk without purpose (even if that purpose be for fun.) At the time, I was trying to show that the level of specificity was obfuscating the discussion, since nothing could go forward at that level - obvious examples and cases could hide the main point. Kinda frustrating when it gets there and I can't figure out how to articulate it without demonstrating it and hoping someone catches on.

Sigh. I hope this clarifies my purpose in arguing. I get the feeling I'm always talking one level away from everything around me. Conversation always is hard for me when I try to say something important.

Comments