Fezmid Posted March 27, 2005 Author Share Posted March 27, 2005 At least it's good to see that a billionaire agrees with me: http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/1234000230037801/ Mark Cuban is funding the battle between Grokster and MGM. And guess what? He's a content owner. Good to see someone who isn't afraid of technology, isn't trying to limit consumer's ability to use the content he creates. Bits are bits. We dont care how they are distributed, just that they are. We want our content to get to the customer in the way the customer wants to receive it, when they want to receive it, at a price that is of value to them. Simple business. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 27, 2005 Author Share Posted March 27, 2005 Think what you want Chris, but I can't envision where there's any rational business justification for a time-expire only business... 287193[/snapback] Can you play any of those Circuit City Divx movies you bought years ago? Nope. Maybe not the exact same concept as time-expire business model, but yet another pitfall with the DRM that the big corps are trying to force on consumers. What's to say the same thing won't happen with a DRM-laden movie/song/book/etc that I buy? Company that runs the DRM goes out of business, and now nobody can use the product anymore. Yet another in a long list of reasons why it's bad bad bad. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 What's to say the same thing won't happen with a DRM-laden movie/song/book/etc that I buy? Company that runs the DRM goes out of business, and now nobody can use the product anymore. Yet another in a long list of reasons why it's bad bad bad. CW 288681[/snapback] Call me when you start the picket line because Emerson Electric won't support customer service for the 8-Track players, even they sold millions of them in the 1970's. How come you still haven't answered my question of why your logic didn't apply to anyone who left out a vinyl album on a dashboard on a hot summer day? Or could it be because you're arguing for looser copy protection that abets piracy, and has very little to do with proper fair use of copyrighted products by consumers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 27, 2005 Author Share Posted March 27, 2005 Call me when you start the picket line because Emerson Electric won't support customer service for the 8-Track players, even they sold millions of them in the 1970's. How come you still haven't answered my question of why your logic didn't apply to anyone who left out a vinyl album on a dashboard on a hot summer day? Or could it be because you're arguing for looser copy protection that abets piracy, and has very little to do with proper fair use of copyrighted products by consumers? 288693[/snapback] I don't need customer service for the 8-Track player, because I had the ability (and legal right) to copy the songs from that 8-Track player to a cassette if I wanted. And from the cassette to a CD if I wanted. No such luck if the RIAA gets its wish. The same holds true for the vinyl album on a dashboard - I should be able to make a backup of the album in case that happens. And when vinyl was big, I DID have that right. Back to the 8-Track player vs Divx players. Divx was around for less than a year before it was discontinued. Two or three years after it was released, the media was worthless. With 8-Track players, as long as your player didn't break down (or you can fix it), you can still use the players. Heck, my parents still have a player and several tapes in their basement that work. And again, the piracy portion doesn't even enter into it. You will ALWAYS be able to (illegally) get around copy protection. Funny how Mark Cuban, a self-made billionaire who made his money making CONTENT doesn't seem to agree with your arguments that this is all about piracy. Let me ask you this - were you against the VCR as well because I could make a copies of programs with it? This really is just the Betamax case all over again. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 At least it's good to see that a billionaire agrees with me: http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/1234000230037801/ Mark Cuban is funding the battle between Grokster and MGM. And guess what? He's a content owner. Good to see someone who isn't afraid of technology, isn't trying to limit consumer's ability to use the content he creates. CW 288678[/snapback] Now we're led to believe that Mark Cuban is a bigger proponent of digitization than Steve Jobs? I'd like to start a scorecard on that one. I'm sure Cuban's blog has nothing to do with his battle to get his owned HDNet cable network on the air. I'm sure it's all about his unique vision about an all-digital world, where DRM wouldn't hamper the good nature of every consumer, where Cuban will freely donate all the content that he has just bought to the Grokster network for people to share. Just like he said in this passage: We want our content to get to the customer in the way the customer wants to receive it, when they want to receive it, at a price that is of value to them. Simple business. What is the chance that the price will be $0, and there will be no restrictions on ownership? If you truly believe that Cuban is on your side, will you get a free DVD of a Cuban produced movie that you pay to see in a Cuban-owned movie theater? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 27, 2005 Author Share Posted March 27, 2005 What is the chance that the price will be $0, and there will be no restrictions on ownership? If you truly believe that Cuban is on your side, will you get a free DVD of a Cuban produced movie that you pay to see in a Cuban-owned movie theater? 288697[/snapback] And where did I say that everything should be free? I just said that, once I buy something, I should be able to use it any way I see fit for my own fair use -- I should be able to listen to any music on any device I own. I should be able to watch any movie on any device I own. I'm not in favor of giving the things away for free and have never said that. Scott quoted the "everything should be free" thing from slashdot, and I said I said I'm not in favor of that. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 I don't need customer service for the 8-Track player, because I had the ability (and legal right) to copy the songs from that 8-Track player to a cassette if I wanted. And from the cassette to a CD if I wanted. No such luck if the RIAA gets its wish. The same holds true for the vinyl album on a dashboard - I should be able to make a backup of the album in case that happens. And when vinyl was big, I DID have that right. And again, the piracy portion doesn't even enter into it. You will ALWAYS be able to (illegally) get around copy protection. Funny how Mark Cuban, a self-made billionaire who made his money making CONTENT doesn't seem to agree with your arguments that this is all about piracy. Let me ask you this - were you against the VCR as well because I could make a copies of programs with it? This really is just the Betamax case all over again. CW 288694[/snapback] And you still have the right to buy a CD and make as many copies as you want with it, just like you can use the much derided iTunes, and rip a CD and make unlimited copies with that CD as well. What's the difference? Sounds like you're fighting for the right to download digitized content and have absolutely no restriction on that. Sorry, no can do. The industry recognizes that piracy is going to go on, and is not going to make it easy onpiratec. If you want to make back-up copies of legally owned works, you still can, and it's hell of a lot easier than it ever was to do it. Please don't mix your analogies. The "temporary" license that you're screaming about is more of a library model, not a buying model. You still have a choice to buy a CD if you want. Why are you getting pi$$ed at companies that are giving some consumers an option to rent unlimited music, if that's what they may want? If you like to own your CDs, there's no one stopping you from going to the store, Amazon, or iTunes and being able to buy a CD that you can do whatever you want with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 27, 2005 Author Share Posted March 27, 2005 Please don't mix your analogies. The "temporary" license that you're screaming about is more of a library model, not a buying model. You still have a choice to buy a CD if you want. Why are you getting pi$$ed at companies that are giving some consumers an option to rent unlimited music, if that's what they may want? If you like to own your CDs, there's no one stopping you from going to the store, Amazon, or iTunes and being able to buy a CD that you can do whatever you want with. 288703[/snapback] I guess I havn't been making myself clear. I'm not complaining about the CURRENT state of the industry. I'm complaining about the future DIRECTION of the industry. Yes, I realize that I can buy a CD today. However, the RIAA would love to stop selling CDs and force consumers to only buy DRM-laden music (and the same with the MPAA and movies and also software companies). That's what I (and others) are protesting - the future. And again, that's what Cuban was talking about as well: It wont be a good day when high school entrepreneurs have to get a fairness opinion from a technology oriented law firm to confirm that big music or movie studios wont sue you because they can come up with an angle that makes a judge believe the technology might impact the music business. It will be a sad day when American corporations start to hold their US digital innovations and inventions overseas to protect them from the RIAA, moving important jobs overseas with them. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 I guess I havn't been making myself clear. I'm not complaining about the CURRENT state of the industry. I'm complaining about the future DIRECTION of the industry. Yes, I realize that I can buy a CD today. However, the RIAA would love to stop selling CDs and force consumers to only buy DRM-laden music (and the same with the MPAA and movies and also software companies). That's what I (and others) are protesting - the future. And again, that's what Cuban was talking about as well:CW 288705[/snapback] And I haven't seen anything proposed on the horizon that would limit a consumer's ability to use music or video content within fair use standards. Read between the lines - EEF will fight any digital restriction and would love to strike down copyright laws as well, because that's what their fight is about. Get rid of copyright and patent protections, and you don't have to worry about DRM. Problem for them is that nothing stops people who own copyrights from unprotecting their works. Cuban is hardly a champion for the little guy, as he's trying to grow into the big leagues of media companies. Let Cuban put money where his mouth is, put his content on Grokster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 27, 2005 Author Share Posted March 27, 2005 http://business.newsforge.com/comments.pl?...25284&cid=20242 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 I had not read this thread because I guessed that DRM was a ewrm of art being argued about by the wonderful technogeeks among us and didnt really impact living my life day to day. The, I read this thread and discovered, I was correct. The thread actually is quite interesting and is a neat exploration of the paths of creativity, business, technology and lots of stuff. However, despite the fact is interesting to me it pretty clearly does not add up to a hill of beans in terms of impacting my life/ The many sides involved appear to be set to fight out these arcane issues and in the end will check and balance each other and allow the live of normal folk to continue on quite nicely. Getting back to the nuts and bolts of the argument, there are a couple of points where the srguments which people make seem to fall apart, 1. Just because the other guy is wrong does not mean you are right. Folks lay out some very strong argments why piracy of content is wrong. I think they are correct. Profitting from someone else's enterprise and work without doing work or adding value yourself is wrong. However, the correctness of this view does not make the content maker holding eclusive rights to determine the fate of the product he has sold in the public square also correct. DRM is correct in that it restrict folks from profitting from work they did not do. However, this does not make it correct for someone who profitted from selling this product out in the world to have total control over all forms of this content. It strikes me there should be reasonable control and recourse to recover the profits anyone makes from someone else\s work. However, once you profit from injecting it into the public square you by the reality of things give up the total ability to control it and profit from it. In many ways this is the essence of the Napster debate because folks shared the "perfect" copies in a manner where they did not profit from this sharing and could do so wiyh incredible speed and variety due to computer technology. I'm al for totally dinging anyone who profits from someone else's creativity and work, However, to the extent the creator suceeds in controlling the content to the extent he/shr cuts off any fair use copying or exchange of the content which does not produce any profit for the person sharing, the content producer likely will need and become the heavy hand of government and likely will kill the fatted calf by also restricting access to and the spread of their product. I think a better world is created and huge profits can still be made by content producers if they allow (and in fact encourage) fair use trading of their product and instead strive to create even more by adding value to their content. If the only way to get the nifty album art, the artists comments on the creative process. and other types of creative value added are to buy the album rather than downloading it I will buy the album and ship my nickels off to the content producer. If the content producer instead attempts to use lawyers to restrict my fair use copying (with no pofit to me), or my trading this neat content to my friends, loved ones and even strangers (with no profit to me) I will simply skip the artist all together or not feel bad about copying the work for free and "winning" the commerce game you have entered us into. It's just business. One of the unfortunate things which I think has happened with DRM and content makers who have invested heavily in the legal system to protect their work is that thos I once valued as artists, I now laugh at as business people. Artists may winthe battle using DRM and other methods but boy at what price since it appears to me they are losing their souls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts