Of course not. Why create artificial scarcity? Why upholad a business model that outlived its usefulness? Why use technology and the law to recreate the old markets instead of using technology to discover new markets?
– AlexSchroeder 2006-06-19 15:19 UTC
Because that business model is worth billions of dollars/pounds/marks/lira and isn’t going to go away any time soon. I’d love all content to become licensed under Creative Commons overnight, but it’s just not going to happen.
I can understand companies wanting to protect their interests and stop people illegally copying and passing on their wares. The current DRM methodology is going about it completely the wrong way though, so I’ve suggested what might be a more acceptable middle ground – without the idiot legislation that surrounds the current DRM model.
Open Source is a viable business model for software because companies and individuals can make money through support, installation and bespoke programming.
Digital media is a different ball game though. When was the last time you paid someone to install a CD for you?
The main issue I have with digital media is the cost. There’s no reason or justification for CDs to cost more than $2, or DVDs $5. Set the prices at those levels and digital media piracy would all but vanish overnight and sales would be through the roof. Then there’d by no “need” for DRM at all
– GreyWulf 2006-06-19 16:12 UTC
Exactly my point. So why help them avoid the kind of market we want? You asked: “Would you subscribe to this kind of Digital Rights Management?” My answer is: “No.”
Just as I’m not buying music from a service that limits how often I can copy it. Should it turn out that I have no choice, because persecution has been perfected, then I will of course start to use it, and support any politician who tries to abolish it. That’s not “subscribing” to it, however. That’s having no alternative at all.
So I guess we fundamentally agree upon the desirability of DRM and our prefered market, all we differ in is that my stance is more fundamental: I don’t want to give an inch. And I feel like the turf is ours. Copyright is a right that “we” the people grant others (via the law) in order to get an even better deal. If we’re not getting a better deal (more output, more entertainment, more food for thought), then I don’t feel like I have the obligation to think of a compromise at all.
After all: There are an infinite number of potentially profitable business models, if you allowed the law to be changed. But you would only support it, if there was something in it for you, for all of us.
Since the “billions of dollars/pounds/marks/lira” you are thinking of are not for you (I assume), I think you should be firmer in your rejection of DRM and related compromises.
All crooks try to legalize their dastardly dealings. Why help them?
– AlexSchroeder 2006-06-19 18:18 UTC
That’s good. We agree on most things
I wouldn’t touch any of the current DRM’d media or appliances with a proverbial 20’ pole. I’d certainly never buy anything else from Sony, ever. I’m also uncomfortable around any industry that feels the need to force legislation in place to “protect their rights”. That’s crooked and evil, I agree, and strictly no-go area.
But if offered a DRM model like the one I’ve outlined, then yes, I’d think that was acceptable. I’ve bought one copy, I get one copy. I can do anything I want with it, including sell it, give it to a friend, etc – but not duplicate it. Cool! To me, that’s what copyright (in this context) is all about.
Right now, we’ve got a broken model where those rules apply but there’s nothing in place to enforce them. It’s just too easy for someone to copy a DVD and sell it for $3 under the counter. By anyone’s book, that’s illegal.
– GreyWulf 2006-06-19 20:40 UTC
I’m not sure. “By anyone’s book” copying a file is illegal, you say. But: We made those laws. We can change them. It seems to me like you want to treat “works” like physical objects. But why do you want to do that? What’s the point? And we need to ask the question, because the system is so entirely man-made. We decided to make the copying illegal for a while unless the copyright owner agrees to it. But if copying is easier, or more things need to be copied to keep our civilization alive, if copying allows us to enjoy ourselves more at less cost, if more people are willing to produce works for less money – why should we not change the rules?
That’s what I disagree with: Copyright is not about extending the mechanisms of physical ownership into the intellectual realm. It’s a deal the people made. A deal that can be rethought. Copying movies need not be illegal in anyone’s book. Copyright need not restrict digital works to the laws of physicals works.
We can do better!
We should do better. We owe it to ourselves to strive for the best. Reimplementing physical scarcity is not it.
(Boy am I being enthusiastic about this… )
– Alex Schröder 2006-06-19 22:41 UTC
> Boy am I being enthusiastic about this… :) )
Lol Yes, you are.
And you’re entirely right too. I’m not a big fan of “copyright” at all. It certainly shouldn’t apply to Intellectual Property. Ideas should always be free.
Where we differ I think is that I don’t see music or a movie as IP. It’s a product, just like a chair or a can of Coke. When you’ve bought a CD, you’ve bought a copy of the music (the CD is just the delivery device). Just like a can of Coke, you should be able to do anything you want with it, but not duplicate the formula and make your own. Under the current legal framework, that’s wrong.
Of course, if the Coke was GPL’d, that would be different
I believe in Open Source and Creative Commons 100%. That also means I believe companies are free to choose their own business models, but we should fight to make sure that those business models (open or not) are fair for the consumer. The current DRM certainly isn’t.
– GreyWulf 2006-06-20 08:17 UTC