Fezmid Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/22/2231213 I think everyone knows I'mm against DRM, but there's some interesting ideas being presented on both sides of the fence. I'm sure this can easily be moved to either consumer or PPP, but it can probably live here too since it's such an all-encompassing topic. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarthur31 Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 Pirate! Let the flame war begin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 24, 2005 Author Share Posted March 24, 2005 Pirate! Let the flame war begin. 285247[/snapback] That's just it, it's NOT about piracy. Piracy is on the fringe, but frankly it will always exist in some form. What proposed DRM measures will do is take away all control from the consumers and give it to the RIAA, MPAA, etc. For example, buy a song online, but if you want to listen to it on your MP3 player, you'll have to buy another license... Want to listen to it in your home theater? Another license. Want to listen to it on your PC? Another license. Or something more radical - buy a license to a song, but have the song "expire" after a month. Want to keep listening? Keep paying. IMHO, there's lots of bad stuff in store if people aren't educated about it now. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/22/2231213 I think everyone knows I'mm against DRM, but there's some interesting ideas being presented on both sides of the fence. I'm sure this can easily be moved to either consumer or PPP, but it can probably live here too since it's such an all-encompassing topic. CW 285212[/snapback] DRM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 24, 2005 Author Share Posted March 24, 2005 DRM? 285254[/snapback] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 Yawn. These people want to make money. If they go to far - people won't give them money. It's only entertainment. We will all survive if the only way to own "Buffalo 66" is to license it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 I have to give a 1hr presentation on the political aspects of DRM next week. I'm thinking of bringing doughnuts for the audience and passing off crushed No-Doz as powdered sugar..... Thanx for the link. Cya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 24, 2005 Author Share Posted March 24, 2005 I have to give a 1hr presentation on the political aspects of DRM next week.I'm thinking of bringing doughnuts for the audience and passing off crushed No-Doz as powdered sugar..... Thanx for the link. Cya 285357[/snapback] I'd love to see the presentation. I'm assuming people aren't going because they want to though? CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 (edited) That's just it, it's NOT about piracy. Piracy is on the fringe, but frankly it will always exist in some form. What proposed DRM measures will do is take away all control from the consumers and give it to the RIAA, MPAA, etc. Heaven forbid that the people who actually own the copyright should have a say in how their works are distributed and protected. For example, buy a song online, but if you want to listen to it on your MP3 player, you'll have to buy another license... Want to listen to it in your home theater? Another license. Want to listen to it on your PC? Another license. Or something more radical - buy a license to a song, but have the song "expire" after a month. Want to keep listening? Keep paying. Why aren't you using the example - since you heard the song on the radio, you're entitled to own the radio station? It makes as much sense. IMHO, there's lots of bad stuff in store if people aren't educated about it now. There wouldn't be the need for this "bad" stuff if more people thought that "sharing" songs on the Internet is wrong. How can you make the claim that piracy is on the fringe, when 90% of millions of daily MP3 downloads are of someone else's copyrighted works? Piracy is very much in the mainstream. Edited March 24, 2005 by GG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 "- All "information" and "ideas", which includes music, software, text, and other unique works, should be allowed to freely flow between people in an unlimited fashion without any encumbrances of ownership;" How can you stomach this hippie crap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 24, 2005 Author Share Posted March 24, 2005 There wouldn't be the need for this "bad" stuff if people didn't think that "sharing" songs on the Internet is wrong. How can you make the claim that piracy is on the fringe, when 90% of millions of daily MP3 downloads are of someone else's copyrighted works? Piracy is very much in the mainstream. 285371[/snapback] I didn't say that piracy itself was on the fringe -- but that DRM affects much more than just the pirates. Piracy will be just as strong with or without DRM. Software is a great example -- there's been copy protection on games since the early 80's. Guess what? Every one has been defeated (except for Altnerate Reality: The City; I'm pretty sure that one was never hacked... But I digress). The only thing copy protection did was make it so everyday users couldn't backup their software. Get your floppy disk too close to a magnet or bend it the wrong way and bam, you needed to buy a new copy of the software. Why aren't you using the example - since you heard the song on the radio, you're entitled to own the radio station? It makes as much sense. Because that's ridiculous. However, if I hear the song on the radio there's nothing legally stopping me from recording it for my own use. For example: http://www.griffintechnology.com/products/...shark/index.php This "license to use that we can pull back at any time" is just riduclous though. If you buy a peice of artwork, should the artist be able to take the painting out of your house after a few months if they decide that they don't like it anymore? DRM would allow artists/labels/etc to "revoke" your license, not allowing you to listen to the music or watch the movie that you paid for. It basically gives the consumer no control over anything. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 24, 2005 Author Share Posted March 24, 2005 "- All "information" and "ideas", which includes music, software, text, and other unique works, should be allowed to freely flow between people in an unlimited fashion without any encumbrances of ownership;"How can you stomach this hippie crap? 285374[/snapback] Ok, I don't know that I'd go quite THAT far... CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazyDingo Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 Its just another way for the Man to stick it to us. ATTICA! ATTICA! ATTICA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 I'm assuming people aren't going because they want to though? That would be an excellent assumption;-) The line coming into the building is likely to resemble the road to Bataan..... Cya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockpile Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 "- All "information" and "ideas", which includes music, software, text, and other unique works, should be allowed to freely flow between people in an unlimited fashion without any encumbrances of ownership;"How can you stomach this hippie crap? 285374[/snapback] Wow, dude, like do you want some peyote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 24, 2005 Author Share Posted March 24, 2005 While I don't believe in what SDS quoted ("Free love!"), I do believe in this: Patents and copyright need to be drastically revised to compensate _only_ the actual creative work. Amen brother! And FSD was upheld by the Supreme Court, so that's not going anywhere. What this issue really comes down to is how greedy corporations want to be. They'd much rather have you and everyone else buy individual RECURRING copies of the same content on whichever media is available. Instead of copying your CDs to the hard drive to burn later in the new format that become the defacto standard, they'd rather you be required to buy it again. This isn't what copyright was intended for. In fact the sole pupose of copyrights were to compensate the creator of a work for doing so, and not to be a recurring cash cow for decades after they die like they are today (re: Disney). CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 While I don't believe in what SDS quoted ("Free love!"), I do believe in this:CW 285402[/snapback] Well Chris, you see it's like this: You can tout your reasons for being against DRM all day long, but you know well that the side benefit of being able to steal the content and mass distribute it is the elephant sittnig in the living room. You know it's there, but you don't want to talk about it. The copyright holders have the same gig. They talk about their reasons for DRM, but fail to point out that they will try and use it to extract more money from the consumers. So both sides are disengenuous. However, no DRM is not feasible in the day of perfect recordings and worldwide distribution for free. So option 1 isn't really an option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 Weren't the lengths of copyrights and patents much shorter back at our nation's founding? I am too lazy to look this up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 24, 2005 Author Share Posted March 24, 2005 You can tout your reasons for being against DRM all day long, but you know well that the side benefit of being able to steal the content and mass distribute it is the elephant sittnig in the living room. You know it's there, but you don't want to talk about it. I talked about it -- those who want to do it will do it with or without DRM. It's been there since day 1 as I mentioned with software copy protection back in the day. I agree that with what you're saying, but there has to be a middle ground. The copyright holders/distrubutors should not have complete power for all of eternity, and the courts have already said that they don't in regards to the Betamax case. http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/betamax/countdown/index.php Of course the Golden Rule looks like it's starting to go into affect - Those who have the gold, make the Rules. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 I didn't say that piracy itself was on the fringe -- but that DRM affects much more than just the pirates. Piracy will be just as strong with or without DRM. Software is a great example -- there's been copy protection on games since the early 80's. Guess what? Every one has been defeated (except for Altnerate Reality: The City; I'm pretty sure that one was never hacked... But I digress). The only thing copy protection did was make it so everyday users couldn't backup their software. Get your floppy disk too close to a magnet or bend it the wrong way and bam, you needed to buy a new copy of the software. Notice your defense of your position says nothing about the impropriety of cracking the codes. There are very few DRM proposals out there that would limit you from legally backing up copies of works that you bought, as long as the DRM came along with the copy. What's wrong with that? As in the previous debate with Dan Gross, he correctly pointed that fact out. No one wants to limit people from enjoying their copies of copyrighted works they legally bought. The much derided iTunes DRM allows you to listen the DRM protected songs on up to 5 PCs or portable players. You get unlimited transportability if you burn the work onto your own CD and copy that as many times as you want. Because that's ridiculous. However, if I hear the song on the radio there's nothing legally stopping me from recording it for my own use. For example:http://www.griffintechnology.com/products/...shark/index.php Yes you can record the song off a radio broadcast and use it for yourself, provided you invest in a tape recorder and some cassettes, and some time to sit there to make sure that you don't record the DJ or commercials. Just like you can buy a CD and burn your own MP3s. Again, no one is stopping that. So what's the problem? If you don't like the new monthly subscription model of Napster, there are other alternatives where you own the CD. BTW, what did you do in the old days when you left your LP on the dashboard on a hot summer day? Did you go back to Record Theatre and say, "I bought Abbey Road last year, but it's fried. I need a free replacement." This "license to use that we can pull back at any time" is just riduclous though. If you buy a peice of artwork, should the artist be able to take the painting out of your house after a few months if they decide that they don't like it anymore? DRM would allow artists/labels/etc to "revoke" your license, not allowing you to listen to the music or watch the movie that you paid for. It basically gives the consumer no control over anything. You're missing the main point is that you are not buying the artwork when you buy a CD. You are buying a license to use that work on whatever medium you purchase, with a fair use right to transport that medium to whatever means you want to use for yourself. If you want to use the right analogy, buy the actual rights to the song and then compare it to a painter asking for his work back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts