Reply to Message
passionate people should support one-another
I've heard a few, though I'm sure not all, arguments on this subject. I have to say I'm surprised by the lack of support, on the part of developers, for DRM on Linux.
Having written a few lines of code here and there, and having a few friends that record music it's easy to see both sides of the problem. Musicians make their money from performances (primarily) and download sales (beer money) while professional and freelance coders tend to make their money elsewhere and tend to donate their code various open source projects.
The foundational difference, is that coding is primarily paid for by a benefactor of some sort (an employer) and music often sustains a musicians life. After having played for many years myself I can say, like it or not, a musicians life is far less predictable and difficult as a result. But, both the music and the code come from a place within us all that is passionate and needs expression; I hope we can all agree on that.
To level the playing field and find a common denominator between the two worlds, programmers would all have to agree to removing any licensing whatever on all code written and contributed. This is the essential difference between bought and "borrowed" music. No project manager, in their right mind, would do such a thing, it's unthinkable. So too it is for the musician.
The common thought is, "It's just Warner Brothers, they can afford it". The reality is much different. For a musician to get a contract they will have to be beaten into submission for a record deal. That deal puts all of the expense on the record label. It puts the largest part of reward on them as well. Musicians tend to see only a few cents for every purchase. Back in the day, for example, Van Halen could sell a $10 album and only see $0.25 (twenty-five cents); that was unheard of at the time.
The fact is that the rest of the world is providing DRM support and stealing our ability to innovate in this area; Linux, in order to contribute to the viability of the platform, must take the lead in this area, for more wide-spread use. If not, Apple and Microsoft will simply take advantage of this already gaping whole within the tech world and further entrench themselves, pushing us further to the outer fringe. And please keep in mind, the outer fringe is attractive to most of us but - only if we are there of our own choosing.
Once we, the Linux users have drawn this line in the sand we lose a few things:
1) Choice
2) The ability to innovate and develop a 'proper' solution
3) Having our rightful place at the Big Table
Linux needs a lot of things for wider acceptance, DRM is only one of them. If we don't do this they (the music industry) will simply push us away and take us less seriously. As a result they will make the assumption that we are stealing music. Even if it's not completely true - it will never be completely untrue. And, we will lose the ability to control our own futures in this area.
The fact is, most all of us understand the importance of making a positive contribution to our environments, what/wherever they may be. Due to these sensibilities, we don't want to be viewed thieves because we are quite simply not.
If we look at this as an opportunity, we have the choice to design DRM bigger and better than Apple, Microsoft, or whoever. A positive light will shine on Linux, no matter how dim, and we will have DRM software that is not only superior but something we can all live with.
If we do this we are 1 step closer to wide-spread adoption and perceived viability. This is a place at the table, invited as the upstanding citizens we are. And, after dinner, we can go see a quality concert; bands that we want to see because they are making their money too.
This is the kind of world we want to live in, and the people that we want to be. The alternative is probably music that is sponsored by a corporation and who would want to see that?
Having written a few lines of code here and there, and having a few friends that record music it's easy to see both sides of the problem. Musicians make their money from performances (primarily) and download sales (beer money) while professional and freelance coders tend to make their money elsewhere and tend to donate their code various open source projects.
The foundational difference, is that coding is primarily paid for by a benefactor of some sort (an employer) and music often sustains a musicians life. After having played for many years myself I can say, like it or not, a musicians life is far less predictable and difficult as a result. But, both the music and the code come from a place within us all that is passionate and needs expression; I hope we can all agree on that.
To level the playing field and find a common denominator between the two worlds, programmers would all have to agree to removing any licensing whatever on all code written and contributed. This is the essential difference between bought and "borrowed" music. No project manager, in their right mind, would do such a thing, it's unthinkable. So too it is for the musician.
The common thought is, "It's just Warner Brothers, they can afford it". The reality is much different. For a musician to get a contract they will have to be beaten into submission for a record deal. That deal puts all of the expense on the record label. It puts the largest part of reward on them as well. Musicians tend to see only a few cents for every purchase. Back in the day, for example, Van Halen could sell a $10 album and only see $0.25 (twenty-five cents); that was unheard of at the time.
The fact is that the rest of the world is providing DRM support and stealing our ability to innovate in this area; Linux, in order to contribute to the viability of the platform, must take the lead in this area, for more wide-spread use. If not, Apple and Microsoft will simply take advantage of this already gaping whole within the tech world and further entrench themselves, pushing us further to the outer fringe. And please keep in mind, the outer fringe is attractive to most of us but - only if we are there of our own choosing.
Once we, the Linux users have drawn this line in the sand we lose a few things:
1) Choice
2) The ability to innovate and develop a 'proper' solution
3) Having our rightful place at the Big Table
Linux needs a lot of things for wider acceptance, DRM is only one of them. If we don't do this they (the music industry) will simply push us away and take us less seriously. As a result they will make the assumption that we are stealing music. Even if it's not completely true - it will never be completely untrue. And, we will lose the ability to control our own futures in this area.
The fact is, most all of us understand the importance of making a positive contribution to our environments, what/wherever they may be. Due to these sensibilities, we don't want to be viewed thieves because we are quite simply not.
If we look at this as an opportunity, we have the choice to design DRM bigger and better than Apple, Microsoft, or whoever. A positive light will shine on Linux, no matter how dim, and we will have DRM software that is not only superior but something we can all live with.
If we do this we are 1 step closer to wide-spread adoption and perceived viability. This is a place at the table, invited as the upstanding citizens we are. And, after dinner, we can go see a quality concert; bands that we want to see because they are making their money too.
This is the kind of world we want to live in, and the people that we want to be. The alternative is probably music that is sponsored by a corporation and who would want to see that?
Posted by todd_dsm
Updated - 31st May 2011
