"> copyright infringement merely reduces the scarcity of what someone possesses.
Merely reduce? But then, if I steal a single bottle of water, I also only merely reduce the scarcity of what the water bottle productor possesses: after all, our world is covered by water, and we are shaping plastic bottles in millions each day."
If you take something from the watered bottle production plant, you're not reducing it's scarcity. You're transferring it from them to you, which you just agreed is theft. What you do to the scarcity is, you INCREASE the local scarcity at the producers end, while decreasing the local scarcity at your own end. The global scarcity is unaffected.
Unlike with digital content. You do not transfer anything from them to you, but the global scarcity goes down. So, it's not theft, it's something else.
And bottled water is pointless, anyway.
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
You're almost 100% correct, AnsuGisalas. I wouldn't say that bottled water is pointless. It has a point the same as renting an apartment has a point. Sure, I could buy/build a water distillation device for use at home and obviate the need for bottled vapor-distilled water in my life, but doing so requires resources that may not be immediately available to me. By the same token, I could just buy a house outright and be done with rent, but doing so requires resources that may not be immediately available to me. (There's also the risk involved with spending so much up front for something the government might take away in two weeks via imminent domain -- that is, via the mechanism of threat of overhwelming force -- but let's leave that alone for now.)
Of course, we can just buy the bottles separately and add the water ourselves.
But that only goes if we have access to clean water.
In Africa, for instance, bottled water can be the only way to keep one's insides even half-way free of burrowing pests.
But that only goes if we have access to clean water.
In Africa, for instance, bottled water can be the only way to keep one's insides even half-way free of burrowing pests.
For now, I'll just say:
Read what Neon Samurai and AnsuGisalas have to say. Add to it this little tidbit:
Copyright infringement is reduction of artificial scarcity. Theft is redistribution of natural scarcity.
In one case, there is reduction of something unnatural. In the other, there is no reduction, and the object of the act is not unnatural.
The two things are so magnificently divergent that it boggles the mind your vision is clouded enough to fail to see it. One might expect you to see no difference between the Washington Monument and a chopstick, between a golf ball and the Moon, or between the power LED on your computer and that blazing orb in the sky, the Sun.
Read what Neon Samurai and AnsuGisalas have to say. Add to it this little tidbit:
Copyright infringement is reduction of artificial scarcity. Theft is redistribution of natural scarcity.
In one case, there is reduction of something unnatural. In the other, there is no reduction, and the object of the act is not unnatural.
The two things are so magnificently divergent that it boggles the mind your vision is clouded enough to fail to see it. One might expect you to see no difference between the Washington Monument and a chopstick, between a golf ball and the Moon, or between the power LED on your computer and that blazing orb in the sky, the Sun.
> You are playing with words and with concepts. Just because digital goods can be copied at no cost doesn't mean that illegally copying is vastly different from stealing, even from a philosophical point of view.
You're right; that's not why it's different from stealing. The reason it is different from stealing is that nothing is taken from the possession of the "victim" The fact that copyright infringement has a different set of laws . . . The course of action you need to take is different, but the result is the same: you deprive someone from its property.
Copying what someone else possesses deprives nobody of any thing he or she possesses. One might stretch the value of "thing" only so far as to say that the "victim" is deprived of monopoly power over what others possess.
Consider a chair. If I rent a chair to you, property law says I own the chair in your possession. If you make a copy of that chair, I do not The virtual good may still be in the hand of its owner, but the money you would have paid is not - and this money is also his property if the contract you would have (implicitely or not) signed says so. Can we say that non physical goods can be the property of someone? Well, it's not up to me to assert this. The laws say so, and if I don't abide this one then I agree that I don't own what I create. But then, the copyleft license terms seems to agree that the creator (or a specific right holder) owns its creation (in this particuliar case, the right owner grants specific rights to anybody who wants to use its creation, but AFAIK, the GPL do not grant you ownership of other's work).
The GPL in particular, as well as copyleft licenses in general, is a completely ridiculous construction that relies at least as much on ex post facto imposition of terms of an agreement to which one may never have agreed as the current copyright regime itself. More so, in fact, because there are things one can do with copyright terms that do not rely on that after-the-fact, involuntary "agreement" enforcement, while what one does with the GPL or some other copyleft license entirely Theft deprives someone of what was stolen by transferring it to the thief; Yes. We agree on this one.
Actually, I don't think we do. Transfer Merely reduce? I can understand that you don't want to see the truth, because the truth is a bit disturbing for many of us: why should we pay for something that cost nearly nothing to reproduce?
That has nothing What did you lost? Economically, you lost a valuable good - thus, you lost money.
Leaving aside the hilarious grammatical error, money is not what I lost if something was stolen from me. What I lost was wealth which, in economic terms, is not money. Money is not valuable in and of itself; it is not wealth. It is a measure of wealth, just as "meters" are not fabric; they are only the measure of fabric. "Ounces" are not heroin; they are the measure of heroin. "Gallons" are not diesel fuel; they are the measure I believe that our world is mostly based on the exchange of goods. You see ? The prejudice exists only because there is no exchange. That's the difference between stealing and aquiring something properly.
There is an exchange when I give you something in my possession and you give me something in yours. There is no exchange when some third party demands that I pass on what you have given me to him for nothing in return other than his refraining from persecuting me. That's not exchange; it's a protection racket. If there was an explicit contractual agreement that I would not share what I was given, however, I would be acting in violation of an agreement, and thus not living up to the terms of an exchange where the effect of some of those terms is delayed. This only applies if the agreement is actually agreed Yes, you might not agree with the fact that someone tells you to pay to get this MP3. But if he's the owner of the MP3, then has has the right to give it a value and you have no right to say the contrary.
The difference here is not between one person believing that the possessor of something has a right to keep it to himself and another believing he doesn't. The difference is that one person believes that possession is possession of the thing, while the other (you) believes that possession is a commutative property that applies to everything in the world with sufficient similarity to the actually No offense, but nonsense again. First, nothing says that every single general statement you can make about CI is valid (by inference) for all forms of CI.
If the "forms" of "CI" are actual forms of it -- that is, strict subsets of it -- rather than just similarly formed things , then yes, a statement that can be made about it does necessarily apply to all strict subsets. That's how subset vs. superset works . I am human; therefore, any statement that applies to all humans applies to me. Period. If something that necessarily applies to humans does not apply to me -- e.g., if it can be said that I am in fact composed of algorithms running on an Intel i5 processor rather than a biological entity with consciousness -- the statement that it does not apply to me is also a statement that I am something other than human .
Thus, if there is some statement that is necessarily true of copyright infringement, it is also necessarily true of digital piracy, unless digital piracy is not a form of copyright infringement I live in France
That explains a lot. France is so screwed up when it comes to copyright that it will not allow someone to release his or her own creation into the public domain. France is one of the reasons I recommend against simple public domain release declarations, and suggest people use copyfree licensing instead.
You're right; that's not why it's different from stealing. The reason it is different from stealing is that nothing is taken from the possession of the "victim" The fact that copyright infringement has a different set of laws . . . The course of action you need to take is different, but the result is the same: you deprive someone from its property.
Copying what someone else possesses deprives nobody of any thing he or she possesses. One might stretch the value of "thing" only so far as to say that the "victim" is deprived of monopoly power over what others possess.
Consider a chair. If I rent a chair to you, property law says I own the chair in your possession. If you make a copy of that chair, I do not The virtual good may still be in the hand of its owner, but the money you would have paid is not - and this money is also his property if the contract you would have (implicitely or not) signed says so. Can we say that non physical goods can be the property of someone? Well, it's not up to me to assert this. The laws say so, and if I don't abide this one then I agree that I don't own what I create. But then, the copyleft license terms seems to agree that the creator (or a specific right holder) owns its creation (in this particuliar case, the right owner grants specific rights to anybody who wants to use its creation, but AFAIK, the GPL do not grant you ownership of other's work).
The GPL in particular, as well as copyleft licenses in general, is a completely ridiculous construction that relies at least as much on ex post facto imposition of terms of an agreement to which one may never have agreed as the current copyright regime itself. More so, in fact, because there are things one can do with copyright terms that do not rely on that after-the-fact, involuntary "agreement" enforcement, while what one does with the GPL or some other copyleft license entirely Theft deprives someone of what was stolen by transferring it to the thief; Yes. We agree on this one.
Actually, I don't think we do. Transfer Merely reduce? I can understand that you don't want to see the truth, because the truth is a bit disturbing for many of us: why should we pay for something that cost nearly nothing to reproduce?
That has nothing What did you lost? Economically, you lost a valuable good - thus, you lost money.
Leaving aside the hilarious grammatical error, money is not what I lost if something was stolen from me. What I lost was wealth which, in economic terms, is not money. Money is not valuable in and of itself; it is not wealth. It is a measure of wealth, just as "meters" are not fabric; they are only the measure of fabric. "Ounces" are not heroin; they are the measure of heroin. "Gallons" are not diesel fuel; they are the measure I believe that our world is mostly based on the exchange of goods. You see ? The prejudice exists only because there is no exchange. That's the difference between stealing and aquiring something properly.
There is an exchange when I give you something in my possession and you give me something in yours. There is no exchange when some third party demands that I pass on what you have given me to him for nothing in return other than his refraining from persecuting me. That's not exchange; it's a protection racket. If there was an explicit contractual agreement that I would not share what I was given, however, I would be acting in violation of an agreement, and thus not living up to the terms of an exchange where the effect of some of those terms is delayed. This only applies if the agreement is actually agreed Yes, you might not agree with the fact that someone tells you to pay to get this MP3. But if he's the owner of the MP3, then has has the right to give it a value and you have no right to say the contrary.
The difference here is not between one person believing that the possessor of something has a right to keep it to himself and another believing he doesn't. The difference is that one person believes that possession is possession of the thing, while the other (you) believes that possession is a commutative property that applies to everything in the world with sufficient similarity to the actually No offense, but nonsense again. First, nothing says that every single general statement you can make about CI is valid (by inference) for all forms of CI.
If the "forms" of "CI" are actual forms of it -- that is, strict subsets of it -- rather than just similarly formed things , then yes, a statement that can be made about it does necessarily apply to all strict subsets. That's how subset vs. superset works . I am human; therefore, any statement that applies to all humans applies to me. Period. If something that necessarily applies to humans does not apply to me -- e.g., if it can be said that I am in fact composed of algorithms running on an Intel i5 processor rather than a biological entity with consciousness -- the statement that it does not apply to me is also a statement that I am something other than human .
Thus, if there is some statement that is necessarily true of copyright infringement, it is also necessarily true of digital piracy, unless digital piracy is not a form of copyright infringement I live in France
That explains a lot. France is so screwed up when it comes to copyright that it will not allow someone to release his or her own creation into the public domain. France is one of the reasons I recommend against simple public domain release declarations, and suggest people use copyfree licensing instead.
...or even the concept of DRM, but rather the way DRM has come to be used in the market. Sony is a prime example here. While the concept of DRM, keeping the rights of publishers and authors like you and me going in this digital universe, is nothing but a good idea, DRM as it is currently implemented protects the already astonishing rights of the publisher.
My point is that there needs to be balance. The author has rights, the publisher has rights, and the consumer has rights. Until DRM evolves into something that addresses all of these in a balanced way, I'm going to have to say NO to any implementation of DRM.
I don't think the current DRM free system works either; the honor system gives all the rights to the user. Since I am 90% user, 10% author, and not a publisher, this is currently the most correct answer for me, but I will not tolerate the rights of one class being stepped on to benefit the other.
DRM as it is implemented now assumes guilt, and this is the problem. It assumes everyone who buys a book, music or video is a criminal and must be tracked. Sony interpreted this to mean that they can do whatever they want to a person's machine if they bought any of their products, even install a root kit. Applying this to other things, imagine if you had to wear an ankle monitor in order to drive because you might break the law with your car. If this was the case, I'd ride a horse. If there is anything beyond a watermark or other method to identify the copy of the media, I will not own it... for in truth I never did.
How serious am I about this? Between Sony's rootkit issue and lobotomising PS3s because they felt like it (and numerous other examples of the company acting like a petulant child) I gave away every piece of Sony equipment I owned and replaced it with other brands. I do without a product or service rather than hand over my rights as a user in favor of the publisher. Until DRM addresses the rights of each level in the chain I see no reason to implement it and every reason not to.
My point is that there needs to be balance. The author has rights, the publisher has rights, and the consumer has rights. Until DRM evolves into something that addresses all of these in a balanced way, I'm going to have to say NO to any implementation of DRM.
I don't think the current DRM free system works either; the honor system gives all the rights to the user. Since I am 90% user, 10% author, and not a publisher, this is currently the most correct answer for me, but I will not tolerate the rights of one class being stepped on to benefit the other.
DRM as it is implemented now assumes guilt, and this is the problem. It assumes everyone who buys a book, music or video is a criminal and must be tracked. Sony interpreted this to mean that they can do whatever they want to a person's machine if they bought any of their products, even install a root kit. Applying this to other things, imagine if you had to wear an ankle monitor in order to drive because you might break the law with your car. If this was the case, I'd ride a horse. If there is anything beyond a watermark or other method to identify the copy of the media, I will not own it... for in truth I never did.
How serious am I about this? Between Sony's rootkit issue and lobotomising PS3s because they felt like it (and numerous other examples of the company acting like a petulant child) I gave away every piece of Sony equipment I owned and replaced it with other brands. I do without a product or service rather than hand over my rights as a user in favor of the publisher. Until DRM addresses the rights of each level in the chain I see no reason to implement it and every reason not to.
I am not a developer nor do I know how to write code and don't know lots about the tech stuff behind drm, rootkits etc....
But I do know, I have to have a Window pc beside my Linux PC if I want to watch Netflix or run QuickBooks.
I voted NOT to have Linux embrace DRM.
I resent big money muscled companies forcing me yield control of my computer just to watch, read or listen to their product offerings. I resent stuff being downloaded to my computer just so Microsoft or whoever, NetFlix, Nvidia, Sony can be assured I am properly licensed to use their products. If I bought the product off the shelf, I own it and should be able to use it on any kind of computer I wish free of having to as they say, "prove my innocence". I prefer to have my Linux machine free of any vendor restrictions.
There has to another model so that the artists can get paid for their work. Gumming up my computer with DRM code isn't an option for me. I'll find another way. I'll watch HULU instead of Netflix.
Fortunately or unfortunately for me I have to have both a Windows pc and a Linux pc because some applications like QuickBooks aren't available to run on Linux. So I use the Windows pc for Netflix and QuickBooks and use my Linux box for 95% of everything else. Besides, not exposing my Windows pc to the Internet helps keep it healthy, functioning and affordable. I let my Linux machine do all of my Internet connectivity for obvious reasons.
Keep your computer's free.
But I do know, I have to have a Window pc beside my Linux PC if I want to watch Netflix or run QuickBooks.
I voted NOT to have Linux embrace DRM.
I resent big money muscled companies forcing me yield control of my computer just to watch, read or listen to their product offerings. I resent stuff being downloaded to my computer just so Microsoft or whoever, NetFlix, Nvidia, Sony can be assured I am properly licensed to use their products. If I bought the product off the shelf, I own it and should be able to use it on any kind of computer I wish free of having to as they say, "prove my innocence". I prefer to have my Linux machine free of any vendor restrictions.
There has to another model so that the artists can get paid for their work. Gumming up my computer with DRM code isn't an option for me. I'll find another way. I'll watch HULU instead of Netflix.
Fortunately or unfortunately for me I have to have both a Windows pc and a Linux pc because some applications like QuickBooks aren't available to run on Linux. So I use the Windows pc for Netflix and QuickBooks and use my Linux box for 95% of everything else. Besides, not exposing my Windows pc to the Internet helps keep it healthy, functioning and affordable. I let my Linux machine do all of my Internet connectivity for obvious reasons.
Keep your computer's free.
Two possibilities: I use NolaPRO for accounting. It's more "nuts and bolts" than Quickbooks, but I can do just about anything with it. Another alternative is to use QB online.
Netflix will eventually do something for us Penguins, but right now I rip the DVDs to my server and enjoy them anywhere in the house... and no, I don't put them on Bit Torrent. That would be stealing, and would give the MPAA something to do.
Netflix will eventually do something for us Penguins, but right now I rip the DVDs to my server and enjoy them anywhere in the house... and no, I don't put them on Bit Torrent. That would be stealing, and would give the MPAA something to do.
> I don't put them on Bit Torrent. That would be stealing, and would give the MPAA something to do.
No, it wouldn't be stealing. It would be copyright infringement. Please, for the luvvagawd, stop abusing terms.
No, it wouldn't be stealing. It would be copyright infringement. Please, for the luvvagawd, stop abusing terms.
So... if I copyright infringe (sorry, I don't see the term catching on...) I should be prosecuted under civil law, while theft is punishable under criminal law. When the RIAA comes after a 92 year old grandma without a computer for sharing Metalica, is she prosecuted under civil or criminal law (or both)?
The truth is that I think you are right. It is copyright infringement prosecuted under civil law.
The truth is that I think you are right. It is copyright infringement prosecuted under civil law.
> if I copyright infringe (sorry, I don't see the term catching on...)
Actually, one would say "infringe copyright", kinda like how "car theft" would be "stealing a car", not "car stealingness".
If people would stop using the wrong term in a manner that completely led everyone astray about the actual nature of the act, they might eventually notice that the remaining, accurate When the RIAA comes after a 92 year old grandma without a computer for sharing Metalica, is she prosecuted under civil or criminal law (or both)?
Civil. Criminal may come into it, depending on circumstances.
Actually, one would say "infringe copyright", kinda like how "car theft" would be "stealing a car", not "car stealingness".
If people would stop using the wrong term in a manner that completely led everyone astray about the actual nature of the act, they might eventually notice that the remaining, accurate When the RIAA comes after a 92 year old grandma without a computer for sharing Metalica, is she prosecuted under civil or criminal law (or both)?
Civil. Criminal may come into it, depending on circumstances.
First, DRM is inherently evil. It prevents honest people who have paid for something from using it as they wish.
Second, DRM is short-sighted and self-destructive. It adds a burden to the vendor (adding to the product's cost and/or necessarily decreasing its quality), and it inconveniences only those who have legitimately paid for the product. It punishes those who obtain a product through authorized channels, and it creates an incentive to obtain the product illicitly.
Third, the presumption in this article that DRM is good because copyright is good is based on a flawed assumption. Copyright, as it is currently implemented, is not good. Copyright is not a natural right: it is an artificial monopoly created by the state for the purpose of encouraging creators by artificially increasing their opportunity to be paid for their work. This is not a bad thing. However, as it is currently implemented, copyright is a form of censorship which is used to prevent current and future work from entering the public domain and to allow a small number of cartels to control and claim ownership over our shared culture now and forever. Copyright as it is currently implemented is anathema to creativity and to the good of society.
So to answer your question: no. Hell no.
Second, DRM is short-sighted and self-destructive. It adds a burden to the vendor (adding to the product's cost and/or necessarily decreasing its quality), and it inconveniences only those who have legitimately paid for the product. It punishes those who obtain a product through authorized channels, and it creates an incentive to obtain the product illicitly.
Third, the presumption in this article that DRM is good because copyright is good is based on a flawed assumption. Copyright, as it is currently implemented, is not good. Copyright is not a natural right: it is an artificial monopoly created by the state for the purpose of encouraging creators by artificially increasing their opportunity to be paid for their work. This is not a bad thing. However, as it is currently implemented, copyright is a form of censorship which is used to prevent current and future work from entering the public domain and to allow a small number of cartels to control and claim ownership over our shared culture now and forever. Copyright as it is currently implemented is anathema to creativity and to the good of society.
So to answer your question: no. Hell no.
It is disturbingly rare to see someone express a somewhat accurate understanding of the nature of copyright. While I might quibble with your ultimate judgment of copyright (contrary to your statement that "This is not a bad thing," any Copyright is not a natural right: it is an artificial monopoly created by the state for the purpose of encouraging creators by artificially increasing their opportunity to be paid for their work.
Open source ideology states that source code has to be available for programs and such or in other words: the source must be open. Open source is protected by licenses and if you want, you can ask money for it. DRM is about protecting revenue from copyrighted material by using technology. DRM is no ideology, just a technique to protect copyright where the law seems to fail.
I am in two minds about this. And in my mind we are confusing four separate issues.
First the claim by opponents of DRM that the owner has the right to make a legitimate backup is clearly wrong. In history if you dropped your 78 RPM and smashed it you had no right to back to the store and ask for a free copy. So just because the technology has advance such that you can make a copy doesn't change the moral question.
Secondly and this is a more subtle question but I thin has a clear answer.
What DRM is saying is the issuer of the rights has an ability to command what device your media is played on.
Again history is a good guideline.
Going back to 78RPMs again. It would never even have occurred to the publishers of that record to insist you could only play it on one gramophone.
What we have with DRM is such an insistence. Caused by the fact that copying as mentioned in 1. is possible.
3. Permanence of ownership and a guarantee that having purchased I can enjoy the material in perpetuity (until accident demands I buy a new copy as mention in section 1)
Here the current DRM model is seriously flawed.
Replace your machine (gramophone as mentioned in section 1)
Chances are you will have serious problems being able play you old DRM mastered and purchased copy on the new machine. I have purchase several DRM controlled tracks and can longer play them on any of my new PC's. Maybe I have missed something here but I do';t trust DRM because it isn't playing fair. Having bought the material I expect to be able to play (or in your case read it) on any 'gramaphone' I own until it breaks or I give it to somebody else. (And I am allowed to do that with a book)
Fourthly.
To bring the points above to a summary.
I dislike intensely that the device my media is on 'own's' the rights.
To give an example.
Last year I was at my 87 year old mothers.
On my iPOD I had Richard Feynman's QED in New Zealand (paid for not downloaded off the web) and despite skepticism she would have been thrilled to watch that. I also has several family videos. I had, unfortunately forgotten to take the iPod video cables. No problem. Plug your Laptop into the TV and hoik the videos from the iPod.
Well I had not registered the laptop as an alternative with iTunes. So mother and I spent an interesting afternoon in conversation and looking out the window at the birds.
The key point here is that a DRM controlled device is not like a USB stick. Once you put your media on that device, in essence, it owns it no matter where it came from.
Where I am coming from.
And in fairness you need to know this to judge my previous comments.
1. I will never buy another Apple or any DRM controlled device. It's a badly engineered and futile attempt to prevent copying that just inconvenience legitimate users. I will just buy something simple like a USB stick and a ??25 multi-media box,
2. The whole attempt is pointless. Anything you can see or listen to can and must be streamed to a watchable or hearable device. That being the case the interposition of good quality microphones and or a camcorder is bound to defeat any such attempt.
Those of you old enough will remember the endless and unsuccessful attempts to stop people recording their vinyl onto cassettes.
3. This debate is not about you and your book and I wish you every success and you can rest assured I will buy a legitimate copy if I ever get round to reading it.
The central thrust of this debate is not the small guy.
It is to make Sony Corporation, Apple and George Michael even richer than they already are.
First the claim by opponents of DRM that the owner has the right to make a legitimate backup is clearly wrong. In history if you dropped your 78 RPM and smashed it you had no right to back to the store and ask for a free copy. So just because the technology has advance such that you can make a copy doesn't change the moral question.
Secondly and this is a more subtle question but I thin has a clear answer.
What DRM is saying is the issuer of the rights has an ability to command what device your media is played on.
Again history is a good guideline.
Going back to 78RPMs again. It would never even have occurred to the publishers of that record to insist you could only play it on one gramophone.
What we have with DRM is such an insistence. Caused by the fact that copying as mentioned in 1. is possible.
3. Permanence of ownership and a guarantee that having purchased I can enjoy the material in perpetuity (until accident demands I buy a new copy as mention in section 1)
Here the current DRM model is seriously flawed.
Replace your machine (gramophone as mentioned in section 1)
Chances are you will have serious problems being able play you old DRM mastered and purchased copy on the new machine. I have purchase several DRM controlled tracks and can longer play them on any of my new PC's. Maybe I have missed something here but I do';t trust DRM because it isn't playing fair. Having bought the material I expect to be able to play (or in your case read it) on any 'gramaphone' I own until it breaks or I give it to somebody else. (And I am allowed to do that with a book)
Fourthly.
To bring the points above to a summary.
I dislike intensely that the device my media is on 'own's' the rights.
To give an example.
Last year I was at my 87 year old mothers.
On my iPOD I had Richard Feynman's QED in New Zealand (paid for not downloaded off the web) and despite skepticism she would have been thrilled to watch that. I also has several family videos. I had, unfortunately forgotten to take the iPod video cables. No problem. Plug your Laptop into the TV and hoik the videos from the iPod.
Well I had not registered the laptop as an alternative with iTunes. So mother and I spent an interesting afternoon in conversation and looking out the window at the birds.
The key point here is that a DRM controlled device is not like a USB stick. Once you put your media on that device, in essence, it owns it no matter where it came from.
Where I am coming from.
And in fairness you need to know this to judge my previous comments.
1. I will never buy another Apple or any DRM controlled device. It's a badly engineered and futile attempt to prevent copying that just inconvenience legitimate users. I will just buy something simple like a USB stick and a ??25 multi-media box,
2. The whole attempt is pointless. Anything you can see or listen to can and must be streamed to a watchable or hearable device. That being the case the interposition of good quality microphones and or a camcorder is bound to defeat any such attempt.
Those of you old enough will remember the endless and unsuccessful attempts to stop people recording their vinyl onto cassettes.
3. This debate is not about you and your book and I wish you every success and you can rest assured I will buy a legitimate copy if I ever get round to reading it.
The central thrust of this debate is not the small guy.
It is to make Sony Corporation, Apple and George Michael even richer than they already are.
First the claim by opponents of DRM that the owner has the right to make a legitimate backup is clearly wrong. In history if you dropped your 78 RPM and smashed it you had no right to back to the store and ask for a free copy. So just because the technology has advance such that you can make a copy doesn't change the moral question.
Fair use does not equate to requesting a second copy from the store. In history, if one had the technology to replicate the original record, I'm guessing they would do so and thus, have a backup should the first copy be dropped and shattered.
If we're going to draw an example of infringement from history, a better one would be Motzart hearing church music then walking home and duplicating it without license to do so (assuming such a thing as copyright existed at that time). But then, that wasn't a duplicate copy of content he had permission to retain a playable copy of.
What DRM is saying is the issuer of the rights has an ability to command what device your media is played on.
Your historical example relies on a technological limitation that is not comparable. Current DRM is a mechanism that limits content transferance not a obscurity of the tools to duplicate the content. Having a 78 RPM recording did not stop one from sitting down to the piano and playing the same music for there own enjoyment. Those who had the ability to record audio where not limited by the 78 RPM original source. DRM would activally prevent the content of that 78 RPM recording from being heard through any other means.
Your point three is the main issue; the ability for a license holder to enjoy the content is now limited to the whims of the device or content owner. Historically, one would consider obtaining a copy of the content as owning that copy of the content. DRM today changes that into obtaining a copy of the content under a short term rental agreement. "you can listen to this 78 RPM record for the next month until we decide that you need to buy the new gramaphone and 79 RPM pressing."
Our own issue at home is one media library held hostage by Itunes versus two Iphones. One can't have two Iphones paired with Itunes under the same user account even though both may belong to the same user. One can pair the second Iphone under a secondary account but that gives up access to the media library belonging to the single owner of the two devices. And, heaven forbid your media library exist on a seporate media server because then neather Iphone is going to have access to sync media though Itunes will have streaming access to play the content. It's a restrictive system clearly designed to drive duplication of license purchases where fair use legally applies.
I personally have always considered my home library to consist of things that I could lend to friends if I wanted to. Today, the complications of lending a book or music to a friend are so draconian, in many cases, that I can't be bothered. So I resent the industry, consider THEM to be thieves, and want nothing to do with their efforts to protect their profits, while claiming that they are standing up for the artists, which I also don't believe.
"So I resent the industry, consider THEM to be thieves, and want nothing to do with their efforts to protect their profits, while claiming that they are standing up for the artists, which I also don't believe."
How much profit do the artists receive from RIAA, MPAA, etc. lawsuits?
How much profit do the artists receive from RIAA, MPAA, etc. lawsuits?
Sony always went the proprietary way. Look where they are now! Who makes money with songs? Certainly not Sony!
There are two ways of distributing content - streaming or download. If a content provider wishes to protect their content, they should make it stream only (for music and video) or require a dongle (games/software).
There is no need to DRM protect a stream. Think about it - Even the perfect DRM system on a stream is not going to stop someone downloading a DRM-free version shared on a file sharing network, but what it does do is restrict who can watch the streams, as what happens with Linux users looking to watch Netflix. DRM may prevent someone attempting to capture the stream, but as I just mentioned, someone determined to get a copy is just going to download it or find a utility that gets around the DRM.
For games and software where users are more tempted to distribute copies due to the software price, I think the best copy protection here is a sturdy USB dongle. I.e. let the user make as many installations or backup copies of disc as they want, but only allow the PC with the dongle attached can run the software/game. Of course there is still the risk of misplacing the dongle just like losing car keys, but in my opinion is still far better than the major problem of scratched discs, product activation, mandatory internet connection, DRM servers offline, etc.
Purchased music and video content should be delivered unlocked. Why? Well, the person who obtains the music/video illegally has a DRM free copy regardless, while the customer who thinks they do the right thing by buying the music/video is the one who's punished with a DRM infected version. I.e. the only people who actually get slapped on the face with DRM are those who buy the content! Whoops...
There is no need to DRM protect a stream. Think about it - Even the perfect DRM system on a stream is not going to stop someone downloading a DRM-free version shared on a file sharing network, but what it does do is restrict who can watch the streams, as what happens with Linux users looking to watch Netflix. DRM may prevent someone attempting to capture the stream, but as I just mentioned, someone determined to get a copy is just going to download it or find a utility that gets around the DRM.
For games and software where users are more tempted to distribute copies due to the software price, I think the best copy protection here is a sturdy USB dongle. I.e. let the user make as many installations or backup copies of disc as they want, but only allow the PC with the dongle attached can run the software/game. Of course there is still the risk of misplacing the dongle just like losing car keys, but in my opinion is still far better than the major problem of scratched discs, product activation, mandatory internet connection, DRM servers offline, etc.
Purchased music and video content should be delivered unlocked. Why? Well, the person who obtains the music/video illegally has a DRM free copy regardless, while the customer who thinks they do the right thing by buying the music/video is the one who's punished with a DRM infected version. I.e. the only people who actually get slapped on the face with DRM are those who buy the content! Whoops...
Like many others Linux and Open Source shouldn't embrace DRM. DRM might be more acceptable if Facebook, Amazon and 99 sites and their bots were not violating user's privacy. Sorry about Netflix on Linux also but it's another example of proprietary software to protect Microsoft Windows. Like others I like NoCD and no Windows Live versions of my games, especially since I'm never play online.
DRM is a response that further blurs the copyright laws. I just watched a DVR'd Hist Channel episode that was preceded by a copyright message stating the only authorized copy of the show is to educators for instructional purposes until 2013. That makes everyone who DVR'd the program copyright infringers. What about printed and music material that makes it copyright 25yrs after the originator dies? Is xeroxing a newspaper article or cartoon, reading a leftover newspaper or magazine, reading a library book or viewing a library DVD copyright infringements?
Originally, copyright law protected the originator for about 25yrs, excepting non-profit copies or fair use. Its ridiculous in this age of digital media to cling to 1970s copyright laws. Reasonable copyright laws along the lines of the original intent with far shorter expiration dates, without transfer of copyrights would eliminate this perceived piracy and need for DRM.
DRM is like TAS measures at the airports, it costs airlines (but mostly travelers) lots of additional money to implement but doesn't improve flight safety anymore than before.
DRM is a response that further blurs the copyright laws. I just watched a DVR'd Hist Channel episode that was preceded by a copyright message stating the only authorized copy of the show is to educators for instructional purposes until 2013. That makes everyone who DVR'd the program copyright infringers. What about printed and music material that makes it copyright 25yrs after the originator dies? Is xeroxing a newspaper article or cartoon, reading a leftover newspaper or magazine, reading a library book or viewing a library DVD copyright infringements?
Originally, copyright law protected the originator for about 25yrs, excepting non-profit copies or fair use. Its ridiculous in this age of digital media to cling to 1970s copyright laws. Reasonable copyright laws along the lines of the original intent with far shorter expiration dates, without transfer of copyrights would eliminate this perceived piracy and need for DRM.
DRM is like TAS measures at the airports, it costs airlines (but mostly travelers) lots of additional money to implement but doesn't improve flight safety anymore than before.
There are actually two separate issues here, and you are conflating them to the detriment of both. Open source, by definition is OPEN, DRM is not--so hooks are OK, but DRM inside Linux is a bad thing ("embrace" implies "embed"). That having been said, I DO use nVidia's "binary blob" drivers.
I have nothing against the CONCEPT of DRM; it's the implementation that bugs me. DRM that precludes fair use violates the very principle of copyright--too much of it does just that--it's swatting flies with a sledgehammer.
I have nothing against the CONCEPT of DRM; it's the implementation that bugs me. DRM that precludes fair use violates the very principle of copyright--too much of it does just that--it's swatting flies with a sledgehammer.
...in other words, tools to help me to stay on the right side of the law. As far as I know, I don't have any ripped-off CDs or DVDs in my collection -- because they all have printed labels and high-quality case artwork, I know I have paid a fair price for them (for some value of "fair"). But if I roll my chair over a disk, I feel justified in making a new copy (for example by copying from a friend's disk) to put into that pretty case. I see no reason why DRM should give me less rights.
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?
> 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. 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.
Not exactly. To get the effect I think you mean, they would all have to distribute their code under copyfree licenses (I prefer the Open Works License No project manager, in their right mind, would do such a thing, it's unthinkable. So too it is for the musician.
I call BS. Releasing the stuff for free under a permissive, copyfree license would result in free advertising. As you noted, musicians make their money from performance; CD sales and downloads, from the business perspective of such musicians, effectively serve as advertising for their performances. Open source software offers the same benefits to programmers.
Ultimately, programmers do not tend to get paid for software sales. They get paid for writing software 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. 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.
This is true for the most part -- but the end result should be the realization that the stuff that does not 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 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. Due to these sensibilities, we don't want to be viewed thieves because we are quite simply not.
It's odd to see you post this a paragraph after you fail to differentiate between theft and copyright infringement. Basically, nobody steals music. You cannot "steal" music in that sense. The person playing the music still possesses it long after someone else comes into possession of a copy; it was not stolen, not removed from the musician's possession.
Not exactly. To get the effect I think you mean, they would all have to distribute their code under copyfree licenses (I prefer the Open Works License No project manager, in their right mind, would do such a thing, it's unthinkable. So too it is for the musician.
I call BS. Releasing the stuff for free under a permissive, copyfree license would result in free advertising. As you noted, musicians make their money from performance; CD sales and downloads, from the business perspective of such musicians, effectively serve as advertising for their performances. Open source software offers the same benefits to programmers.
Ultimately, programmers do not tend to get paid for software sales. They get paid for writing software 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. 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.
This is true for the most part -- but the end result should be the realization that the stuff that does not 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 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. Due to these sensibilities, we don't want to be viewed thieves because we are quite simply not.
It's odd to see you post this a paragraph after you fail to differentiate between theft and copyright infringement. Basically, nobody steals music. You cannot "steal" music in that sense. The person playing the music still possesses it long after someone else comes into possession of a copy; it was not stolen, not removed from the musician's possession.
The problem with this philosophy is that it says that by refusing to allow intrusive technologies we are admitting wrongdoing. I believe the entire underlying argument is flawed.
You picked at the finer points and still missed the message. DRM ain't coming - it's here and it sucks!!!
If you want to let the big boys make all the DRM decisions while you guys sit there with your arms folded, rolling your eyes, you'll be sending a message: we're OK with how things are right now. This message is unacceptable to those with the entertainment. And, if you don't play ball - no clicky clicky unless you buy it or steal it.
This is the real problem with telling the truth - no body wants to hear it, no matter what the reality is.
The problem with communication is that it's output just like when you're unit testing a program: you get a positive result, a negative result, or a null result. Each one of the outcomes tells the tester something. In this case you're saying that status quo is fine; IE: we're going to continue to steal your product.
The people that control the music that you love so much are listening. And guess what - they are only willing to play ball with those that take their problem seriously. Also, keep in mind the executives at any major label will only feel a slight pinch when they lose a few bucks while a new artist will miss a meal.
DRM can be done so that the community doesn't feel as anally invaded as the artists do. If you're telling me that it can't be done I'll point to Apple, Ubuntu, Audible, Microsoft, Amazon, etc. It's BEEN done, there IS a way and, I think, the Linux community usually finds a BETTER way.
The problem isn't that it can't be done comfortably because Steve Jobs has already figured it out for us. I'm going to make a prediction: Google will refine the process for us once their music app is out of beta then, after their laptop starts shipping this summer (with DRM) we will have even less control over it in the future. Keep in mind kids, we don't live on planet earth any more - we live on planet Google.
The real problem is that the community needs to face a reality and define DRM on it's own terms.
You're going to have to suck the binky at some point - the only question is: did you build the binky or will you have to suck someone elses?
Pick a flavor.
If you want to let the big boys make all the DRM decisions while you guys sit there with your arms folded, rolling your eyes, you'll be sending a message: we're OK with how things are right now. This message is unacceptable to those with the entertainment. And, if you don't play ball - no clicky clicky unless you buy it or steal it.
This is the real problem with telling the truth - no body wants to hear it, no matter what the reality is.
The problem with communication is that it's output just like when you're unit testing a program: you get a positive result, a negative result, or a null result. Each one of the outcomes tells the tester something. In this case you're saying that status quo is fine; IE: we're going to continue to steal your product.
The people that control the music that you love so much are listening. And guess what - they are only willing to play ball with those that take their problem seriously. Also, keep in mind the executives at any major label will only feel a slight pinch when they lose a few bucks while a new artist will miss a meal.
DRM can be done so that the community doesn't feel as anally invaded as the artists do. If you're telling me that it can't be done I'll point to Apple, Ubuntu, Audible, Microsoft, Amazon, etc. It's BEEN done, there IS a way and, I think, the Linux community usually finds a BETTER way.
The problem isn't that it can't be done comfortably because Steve Jobs has already figured it out for us. I'm going to make a prediction: Google will refine the process for us once their music app is out of beta then, after their laptop starts shipping this summer (with DRM) we will have even less control over it in the future. Keep in mind kids, we don't live on planet earth any more - we live on planet Google.
The real problem is that the community needs to face a reality and define DRM on it's own terms.
You're going to have to suck the binky at some point - the only question is: did you build the binky or will you have to suck someone elses?
Pick a flavor.
There could be something made available to download on Linux platforms that would allow for some sort of DRM verification. This will not change the fact that DRM does not stop piracy and in fact makes it more difficult for paying customers to use the product they purchased. I have had problems with PC video games that refuse to run fresh off of the first install of a newly purchased DVD. Tron is the last time that this happend. The irony is that after I pay $50 and spend a couple of hours trying to get it to work I resort to looking for cracks. The official support for the game company usually just tells me to reinstall. I have found that using a NO-CD crack can allow me to play a game that I legally purchased from GameStop where the offical support team for the game has failed to give me access to my content.
Vendors that essentially urinate on their customers like that are actually supported by your willingness to buy their user-hostile crap and use cracks to access the distributed content. What you should do is return the DVD and get your money back.
My experience with DRM has been nothing but troublesome. From games that just won't work unless broken (StarWars: Battlefront), to system slowdowns, I have seen nothing to my benefit, and much to my "demise". From a usability standpoint, DRM simple "screw" with my system and all have had "side-effects".
On the other hand, I have seen nothing but abuse from those using DRM. Take the Ipod, which has a copy of my mp3. If I have to reinstall/format the drive, I can't count on my Ipod to reconstitute my collection. If I hook it up to Itunes, my ipod will be wiped. Why should I have to backup my collection, when there's a perfectly good backup sitting on the Ipod? If without a backup, why do I have to rebuild my mp3 collection exactly? Whom is it that I cheat exactly if I extract the mp3s from the ipod? If I'm sharing my collection, I won't be doing it through the Ipod, but on P2P. (I'm not sharing a damn thing mind you)
Nevermind the Sony rootkit debacle, nothing has ever really worked quite right with DRM, with Maybe steam as being the only "acceptable" exception. So why exactly would I want software designed to cripple my system exactly? Up to now, I have seen nothing but bad behavior from DRMs, which pretty much says it all about those who insist upon it. So with that in mind, I say a clear resounding NO to DRM. Your problems with thieves/pirates should not and cannot muck up my machine. Better yet, I should not have to prove my innocence on my own turf!
They way things are done right now, it's abusive, with IP owners thinking only of their rights. Until the track record show DRM users can produce DRM schemes that:
- leave my system unaffected;
- Still leave me with a usable product under any circumstances;
- Doesn't make me as guilty most of the time;
- Doesn't needlessly limit my use of my licensed IP...
Well, I want nothing to do with it and you can keep your books to yourself buddy.
On the other hand, I have seen nothing but abuse from those using DRM. Take the Ipod, which has a copy of my mp3. If I have to reinstall/format the drive, I can't count on my Ipod to reconstitute my collection. If I hook it up to Itunes, my ipod will be wiped. Why should I have to backup my collection, when there's a perfectly good backup sitting on the Ipod? If without a backup, why do I have to rebuild my mp3 collection exactly? Whom is it that I cheat exactly if I extract the mp3s from the ipod? If I'm sharing my collection, I won't be doing it through the Ipod, but on P2P. (I'm not sharing a damn thing mind you)
Nevermind the Sony rootkit debacle, nothing has ever really worked quite right with DRM, with Maybe steam as being the only "acceptable" exception. So why exactly would I want software designed to cripple my system exactly? Up to now, I have seen nothing but bad behavior from DRMs, which pretty much says it all about those who insist upon it. So with that in mind, I say a clear resounding NO to DRM. Your problems with thieves/pirates should not and cannot muck up my machine. Better yet, I should not have to prove my innocence on my own turf!
They way things are done right now, it's abusive, with IP owners thinking only of their rights. Until the track record show DRM users can produce DRM schemes that:
- leave my system unaffected;
- Still leave me with a usable product under any circumstances;
- Doesn't make me as guilty most of the time;
- Doesn't needlessly limit my use of my licensed IP...
Well, I want nothing to do with it and you can keep your books to yourself buddy.
You said that you "Get-It" and that you recognize that "The music industry people are the slave laborers of artistry" well you forget that the same goes for the Movie industry (does anyone here happen to be historian enough to know why "United Artists" studios was started!!! The Movie industry IS the EVIL EMPIRE and has been from the very start!! Can any one here say "Motion Picture Association of America" !!! Now shall we turn our interest to your favorite industry Jack the publishing industry, Na let's not Jack might get peeved-off too much and go looking for another publisher that pays him better, oops 
Jack, you talk of drivers for my video card, why the He11 where they written in the first place WHY did ATI (and now AMD) write those proprietary drivers in the first place??? Because they could, and get away with it, thats why!!! I personally am tired, SICK & TIRED of dealing with DR freaken M garbage period!!! There has to be an OS out there that's deliberately kept out of the hands of the flesh mongers, one that even the black hats (no offence intended here folks) will allow to be free of Viruses Malware (yeah, yeah, I know, root kits, etc. just wishful thinking here) and DRM!!
Break out the eye patches, the cutlasses and hoist the jolly roger, I would rather be called a pirate for making a fare-use back-up copy (1 not hundreds) of the DVD I legitimately purchased on an OS that allows same than jump through the hoops that I have to on Windows with it's top heavy DRM infrastructure. Thanks but NO THANKS, take the DRM and SHOVE-IT where the sun doesn't shine!!! AND if i get barred from here for voicing my opinion on this (sorry, I have tried to keep it as clean as my feelings will allow) subject, well so be it. L8R all
Jack, you talk of drivers for my video card, why the He11 where they written in the first place WHY did ATI (and now AMD) write those proprietary drivers in the first place??? Because they could, and get away with it, thats why!!! I personally am tired, SICK & TIRED of dealing with DR freaken M garbage period!!! There has to be an OS out there that's deliberately kept out of the hands of the flesh mongers, one that even the black hats (no offence intended here folks) will allow to be free of Viruses Malware (yeah, yeah, I know, root kits, etc. just wishful thinking here) and DRM!! Break out the eye patches, the cutlasses and hoist the jolly roger, I would rather be called a pirate for making a fare-use back-up copy (1 not hundreds) of the DVD I legitimately purchased on an OS that allows same than jump through the hoops that I have to on Windows with it's top heavy DRM infrastructure. Thanks but NO THANKS, take the DRM and SHOVE-IT where the sun doesn't shine!!! AND if i get barred from here for voicing my opinion on this (sorry, I have tried to keep it as clean as my feelings will allow) subject, well so be it. L8R all
Richard Stallman and the FSF guide the definition of a term of propaganda, "Free Software". They have decided to lead the Linux community merrily down the garden path of "DRM is evil and should be disallowed by law". The definition of open source software, on the other hand, does not require any such legal battle against DRM per se.
I had a lot more to say about how unnecessary strict copyright enforcement (and thus DRM) is for making a living as a creator -- in fact, how counterproductive it can be. After a while, though, I realized I was writing the basis of a new TechRepublic article, so I saved the half-finished thing in a text file. I'll write more of it this week and submit it to an editor rather than dump a couple thousand words here.
I had a lot more to say about how unnecessary strict copyright enforcement (and thus DRM) is for making a living as a creator -- in fact, how counterproductive it can be. After a while, though, I realized I was writing the basis of a new TechRepublic article, so I saved the half-finished thing in a text file. I'll write more of it this week and submit it to an editor rather than dump a couple thousand words here.
Well . . . it's turning into two or three articles. The first of them is in the IT Security column:
DRM Is Counterproductive
I think the title pretty well sums up the subject matter. There's a video of Neil Gaiman commenting on copyright enforcement and the effect it can have on business model success.
The other couple of articles I have in the works that bear on the same subject (another for IT Security and one for Open Source, I think) will touch on other specific related subject matter. For instance, the one I'm working on for the Open Source column aims squarely at the question of whether open source OSes should "embrace" DRM, and why or why not.
DRM Is Counterproductive
I think the title pretty well sums up the subject matter. There's a video of Neil Gaiman commenting on copyright enforcement and the effect it can have on business model success.
The other couple of articles I have in the works that bear on the same subject (another for IT Security and one for Open Source, I think) will touch on other specific related subject matter. For instance, the one I'm working on for the Open Source column aims squarely at the question of whether open source OSes should "embrace" DRM, and why or why not.
In theory, DRM is a laudable goal - ensuring copyright holders receive payment for their work.
In practice, DRM has been anything but laudable.
Remember the Sony Rootkit debacle?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal
Has Amazon's bravado with 1984 slipped your mind?
http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/clay-dillow/culture-buffet/amazon-apologizes-destroying-1984-copies-new-1984-copies-or-30
DRM has brought the reputation on themselves.
And that reputation is that DRM is bad news for legitimate purchasers of legal copies of licensed materials.
In practice, DRM has been anything but laudable.
Remember the Sony Rootkit debacle?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal
Has Amazon's bravado with 1984 slipped your mind?
http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/clay-dillow/culture-buffet/amazon-apologizes-destroying-1984-copies-new-1984-copies-or-30
DRM has brought the reputation on themselves.
And that reputation is that DRM is bad news for legitimate purchasers of legal copies of licensed materials.
I admit I'm not well versed in all the ins and outs of Copyright law. My primary exception to DRM is the extent to which large corporations are manipulating copyright to prevent it from falling into the public domain. Artists should be paid for their work products, however, it would seem that large corporations are lobbying for longer and longer copyright periods even after the original creator is dead.
According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright), The first federal copyright act, the Copyright Act of 1790 granted copyright for a term of "fourteen years from the time of recording the title thereof", with a right of renewal for another fourteen years if the author survived to the end of the first term.
And now, In the United States, the term for most existing works is for a term ending 70 years after the death of the author. If the work was a work for hire (e.g., those created by a corporation) then copyright persists for 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever is shorter.
If memory serves, Disney has strongly lobbied to extend the copyright periods for their "Snow White" and all the works that follow it.
If every idea and invention were held in a perpetual Copyright, I wonder how new things would ever get invented? There are even disputes throughout time on who invented it first which puts down the idea that only one person thought of it, or created it. I submit that all works are a derivative of some other work in some way. Wikipedia states, "Copyrighted works may not be used for derivative works without permission from the copyright owner, while public domain works can be freely used for derivative works without permission."
In attempting to map the public domain Pamela Samuelson has identified eight values that can arise from information and works in the public domain. Some are:
-- Building blocks for the creation of new knowledge.
-- Access to cultural heritage through information resources such as ancient Greek texts and Mozarts symphonies.
-- Enabling follow-on innovation, through for example expired patents and copyright.
-- Enabling competitive imitation.
Again, artists should be paid for their work... but in my opinion... not forever. Perhaps every Disney film should be required to pay the inventor of the camera, the film, the motion picture concept, the tripod, and so on.
According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright), The first federal copyright act, the Copyright Act of 1790 granted copyright for a term of "fourteen years from the time of recording the title thereof", with a right of renewal for another fourteen years if the author survived to the end of the first term.
And now, In the United States, the term for most existing works is for a term ending 70 years after the death of the author. If the work was a work for hire (e.g., those created by a corporation) then copyright persists for 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever is shorter.
If memory serves, Disney has strongly lobbied to extend the copyright periods for their "Snow White" and all the works that follow it.
If every idea and invention were held in a perpetual Copyright, I wonder how new things would ever get invented? There are even disputes throughout time on who invented it first which puts down the idea that only one person thought of it, or created it. I submit that all works are a derivative of some other work in some way. Wikipedia states, "Copyrighted works may not be used for derivative works without permission from the copyright owner, while public domain works can be freely used for derivative works without permission."
In attempting to map the public domain Pamela Samuelson has identified eight values that can arise from information and works in the public domain. Some are:
-- Building blocks for the creation of new knowledge.
-- Access to cultural heritage through information resources such as ancient Greek texts and Mozarts symphonies.
-- Enabling follow-on innovation, through for example expired patents and copyright.
-- Enabling competitive imitation.
Again, artists should be paid for their work... but in my opinion... not forever. Perhaps every Disney film should be required to pay the inventor of the camera, the film, the motion picture concept, the tripod, and so on.
Great reply. Copyright laws should be rolled back to the original 14 +14 years and granted only to the original copyrighter.
I'm preaching to the choir I know but DRM and copyright laws wouldn't exist without the programming most use freely now. Someone wrote the code for DRM, someone invented digitized recording.
Corporations are trying to copyright and patent plant and human DNA, Agricultural corporations are patenting GM seeds and suing farmers who's crops might have become cross pollinated with the GM seeds.
I guess there's a huge difference for RIAA and U.S. Copyright Group artists than painters. I'm waiting for the DRM lawsuits on a Picasso and 4 dogs gambling!
I'm preaching to the choir I know but DRM and copyright laws wouldn't exist without the programming most use freely now. Someone wrote the code for DRM, someone invented digitized recording.
Corporations are trying to copyright and patent plant and human DNA, Agricultural corporations are patenting GM seeds and suing farmers who's crops might have become cross pollinated with the GM seeds.
I guess there's a huge difference for RIAA and U.S. Copyright Group artists than painters. I'm waiting for the DRM lawsuits on a Picasso and 4 dogs gambling!
Jack:
In my view you're continuing to blur the difference between copying and plagiarism. This mish-mash has been so deftly and thoroughly pushed onto all of us by the entertainment industry that we tend to forget. Copying should *always* be allowed, plagiarism should never be allowed. Content creators deserve protection against thieves, but copying is an inherent part of cultural growth.
DRM tries to prevent copying, but does nothing to stop plagerism, so it's totally unnecessary.
--
Micha
In my view you're continuing to blur the difference between copying and plagiarism. This mish-mash has been so deftly and thoroughly pushed onto all of us by the entertainment industry that we tend to forget. Copying should *always* be allowed, plagiarism should never be allowed. Content creators deserve protection against thieves, but copying is an inherent part of cultural growth.
DRM tries to prevent copying, but does nothing to stop plagerism, so it's totally unnecessary.
--
Micha
The Fundamental Law in the US says that protection has to be "for a limited time." Show me one form of DRM that satisfies that law.
The whole DMCA matter is a conspiracy to break the US law, by the "content" industries, the Executive Branch, the Congress, and even the courts. We should call a spade a spade, and a lawbreaker a lawbreaker. Period.
The whole DMCA matter is a conspiracy to break the US law, by the "content" industries, the Executive Branch, the Congress, and even the courts. We should call a spade a spade, and a lawbreaker a lawbreaker. Period.
From a bit more than a year ago, Jack Wallen having fits because Netflix uses DRM: http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/opensource/the-netflix-linux-conjecture-how-netflix-snubs-the-linux-community/1745
My favorite quote? "I hope that some day you will drop the DRM constraints so everyone can enjoy your instant play feature."
Jack, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Why is DRM good when it protects things that generate revenue for you, but not good when it keeps you from streaming Netflix?
J.Ja
My favorite quote? "I hope that some day you will drop the DRM constraints so everyone can enjoy your instant play feature."
Jack, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Why is DRM good when it protects things that generate revenue for you, but not good when it keeps you from streaming Netflix?
J.Ja
I am regularly dismayed by the all-too-common case of stumbling across someone on the Internet presenting some kind of obviously derivative modification of something someone else created, then throwing fits if someone else shares it or uses it on the Internet without direct permission. I'm not sure copyright can exist without encouraging hypocrisy.
That sounds all too much like many songs on the radio now... insanely derivative, some of them even copy entire melodies (without sampling, merely copying the tune willy nilly), but those same artists and record labels are quick with the DCMA hammer...
But yeah, I know what you mean. I see it in the GPL camp from time to time too... someone basically wholesale replicates something else that was covered under a different license, but then GPLs their version and enforces it to the hilt. Give me a break...
J.Ja
But yeah, I know what you mean. I see it in the GPL camp from time to time too... someone basically wholesale replicates something else that was covered under a different license, but then GPLs their version and enforces it to the hilt. Give me a break...
J.Ja
> You've been listening to Katy Perry?
Have you heard her unmediated voice in commercials or interviews? I don't think she has more than two brain cells to rub together. She's an obvious idiot -- or pretending to be one. Either way, I'm not interested.
I was actually referring to Internet "artists" who are not famous, and have no hope of ever becoming famous, because they can't even summon the talent to make someone else's work look good -- let alone their own. Now that you mention it, though, the mainstream record industry certainly does contain a lot of plagiarism of varying levels of obviousness.
. . . and don't get me started on the GPL right now. Please. If you really want to see something new from me about related matters, check out my latest blogstrapping entry, No GNUs Is Good Gnews.
Have you heard her unmediated voice in commercials or interviews? I don't think she has more than two brain cells to rub together. She's an obvious idiot -- or pretending to be one. Either way, I'm not interested.
I was actually referring to Internet "artists" who are not famous, and have no hope of ever becoming famous, because they can't even summon the talent to make someone else's work look good -- let alone their own. Now that you mention it, though, the mainstream record industry certainly does contain a lot of plagiarism of varying levels of obviousness.
. . . and don't get me started on the GPL right now. Please. If you really want to see something new from me about related matters, check out my latest blogstrapping entry, No GNUs Is Good Gnews.
... it was well timed, because a few weeks ago I was thinking of that show and I couldn't remember the name of it. 
And yes, Katy Perry (and the whole crew of pop singers, for that matter) is a moron. They are basically blank canvasses waiting for the production teams to paint upon.
J.Ja
And yes, Katy Perry (and the whole crew of pop singers, for that matter) is a moron. They are basically blank canvasses waiting for the production teams to paint upon.
J.Ja
I don't get it. The moment she opens her mouth, I tune her out. People act like she's the best thing since sliced bread, though, and frankly she's not really all that attractive even when she keeps her mouth shut. I think it might have something to do with some features she has in common with Zoe Deschanel, followed by momentum, but I'm not sure.
I guess I just don't get it.
I guess I just don't get it.
Some people only like white bread.
And ketchup... maybe.
There's no arguing tastes. Especially there's no argument about the poorness of certain preferences
And ketchup... maybe.
There's no arguing tastes. Especially there's no argument about the poorness of certain preferences
... "fresh" out of bed, before the stylist and artists go to work on her, and before the Photoshop could be applied... let's just say that she was "plain" to put it nicely. Not that I look so hot in the morning (actually, I don't look any worse than I normally do, that's the beauty of short hair), but my fame and fortune isn't significantly tied to my appearance either...
J.Ja
J.Ja
I don't think she looks so hot after the makeup and hairstyling and airbrushing, either. The stupid shows through pretty clearly.
...for me.
Yes, I think they're silly -- they never lost any significant money from any of the copying facilities; it was just that more people got to use the matter than paid for it, although roughly the same number of people actually paid.
Encoding holds off all but the most technically literate, which is as it should be; the few who are literate enough to beat the encoding can, and should be, sued -- _sued_ -- for it if it's truly worth the effort for the owner. Those who beat the encoding and resell should be prosecuted -- that's the real crime.
My problem with the present DRM is that the lords of Sony and Time-Warner bought up enough Congressmen to make a civil matter a criminal matter, thus replacing their responsibility to take care of their own business with the force of the federal government to maximize their profits -- and deepen the corruption of our Congressional culture. And, as others have said, it protects only the corporate interest, since artists have been made into indentured servants of the corporations by poor copyright law.
Yes, I think they're silly -- they never lost any significant money from any of the copying facilities; it was just that more people got to use the matter than paid for it, although roughly the same number of people actually paid.
Encoding holds off all but the most technically literate, which is as it should be; the few who are literate enough to beat the encoding can, and should be, sued -- _sued_ -- for it if it's truly worth the effort for the owner. Those who beat the encoding and resell should be prosecuted -- that's the real crime.
My problem with the present DRM is that the lords of Sony and Time-Warner bought up enough Congressmen to make a civil matter a criminal matter, thus replacing their responsibility to take care of their own business with the force of the federal government to maximize their profits -- and deepen the corruption of our Congressional culture. And, as others have said, it protects only the corporate interest, since artists have been made into indentured servants of the corporations by poor copyright law.
The person who actually makes his living from his content was the one on the panel speaking out against DRM. The big business representatives who make there money parasitically on the backs of content creators felt differently.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/05/barlow/
and
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/05/barlow/
When Barlow had a chance to speak, he expressed his own surprise at being on the panel, ???because I don???t think I???m from the same planet, actually.??? He then proceeded to trash the foundational assumptions of everyone who had just spoken.
I may be one of very few people in this room who actually makes his living personally by creating what these gentlemen are pleased to call ???intellectual property.??? I don???t regard my expression as a form of property. Property is something that can be taken from me. If I don???t have it, somebody else does.
Expression is not like that. The notion that expression is like that is entirely a consequence of taking a system of expression and transporting it around, which was necessary before there was the internet, which has the capacity to do this infinitely at almost no cost.
In Barlow???s view, the e-G8 has been about ???imposing the standards of some business practices and institutional power centers that come from another era on the future, whether they are actually productive of new ideas or not.???
and
The head of Universal Music France talked about just how much money was necessary to nurture new talent. DIdn???t Barlow understand economics?
???If you???re spending $5 billion on new artists, we???re not getting our money???s worth,??? Barlow cracked, and he reframed his argument in economic terms of scarcity and abundance.
???Trying to optimize towards scarcity, as you are by all of your methods, is not going to be in the benefit of creation, I promise you,??? he said. ???It???s not IP enforcement that gets you guys properly paid.??? In his view, payment comes from building a product that people actually want to buy???and the movie industry???s repeated record box office takes in recent years show that people have no problem coughing up the cash for something of value.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
