Cluttermagnet Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 Screw the Digital-Rights BugabooDvorak is in good form, as usual. His closing comments- "Above all, let's stop complaining about the P2P situation with our mouths, and start complaining with our pocketbooks." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epp_b Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 (edited) I haven't even read it yet and can say with 99% assurance that I agree with every point Dvorak makes! :DEDIT: nope, I was wrong...I agree 100%! Good job, Dvorak, at not just jabbing DRM, but the root of the problem: greedy execs who are incapable of fathoming a little thing called "reason". Edited May 17, 2006 by epp_b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guitar Man Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 I just finished reading the 2 pages. You can't say this guy's boring ! Excellent article, with his usual style. He's right on the money.I can't wait to read what he'll have to say about Skype... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epp_b Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 I can't wait to read what he'll have to say about Skype...I think I'd bet that it'll be a good batch of criticism against the telcos -- can't get out of your vintage business model? Then update or die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden11 Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 So the message to business is change your business model or the people will rob you blind and out of business??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guitar Man Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 I would read that to mean "keep up with technology trends or become a dinosaur". What Dvorak is saying is that the DRM movement is shooting itself in the foot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden11 Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 And so are people who continue to steal protected content. They are not helping their cause either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epp_b Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 So the message to business is change your business model or the people will rob you blind and out of business???Get serious, please. The same thing happened with audio cassettes. Just like now, the RIAA tried to shove us propaganda about copying cassette tapes being the equivalent to baby killing or something (disgustingly, DMCA-infringement now carries a heavier sentence than manslaughter, asault of a police officer, and possession of child porn).Surprise, surprise, cassettes turned out to be a huge success for them after they were finally able to grasp the fact that *gasp* technology changes. Oooooohh...Somehow, I get the feeling that the RIAA has reached the end of the stick and is run by dumb execs who have no clue about technology. Not to sound harsh, but I don't think we'll see any real progress until these execs die off and are replaced by people who know what they're doing.Do you think that we shouldn't be allowed to time, device, or format shift our own legally-purchased media around? Do you really want the **AA to charge us through our snot-holes to do this?And so are people who continue to steal protected content. They are not helping their cause either.You need to refresh your definition on the word "steal". Downloading a song "illegally" is not the same as swiping something from a retail store because you can't apply real-life, physical restrictions to digital content. It's defined as "taking away a sale", which still isn't the same. And, if you equate "taking away a sale" to "stealing", advising someone not to purchase a certain product would also equate to "stealing"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epp_b Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 (edited) Check this story on Slashdot... skayell writes "The RIAA is suing XM Satellite radio contending that the ability to store songs in memory makes it similar to an iPod, but with no income involved for the RIAA." From the article: "XM said it will vigorously defend this lawsuit on behalf of consumers and also called the lawsuit a bargaining tactic. [...] The labels are currently in talks with XM and its rival Sirius Satellite Radio, to renegotiate digital royalty contracts for broadcasts."I also want to direct you to a particular comment as well:In other news, coal oil lantern manufacturers sue lightbulb producers on the grounds that "lightbulb buyers will have little need ever again to buy plaintiffs' lanterns". Horse buggy builders are said to be following the case closely.Even though it's modded as funny, it's the most accurate comment there. Technology changes -- businesses need to change with it. This is something RIAA has never been able to grasp completely. Edited May 17, 2006 by epp_b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guitar Man Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 The last time I checked, we still have a democratic society in North America. And that means we still have the right to choose.This is not China, where you are dictated on what you can view on TV, listen to on radio, or access on the net. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peachy Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 The real issue is that DRM is a kludge because the world has analog intellectual property copyright laws in a digital world and is clearly, a broken legal framework. This is a fact which both sides of the argument agree on, but take different approaches to dealing with it. The only way this can be solved is with legislators who have a clue about technology and sadly, 95% of them don't. This is partially a generational thing which one organization is hoping to change by giving an iPod to every Congressman in the U.S. Congress. Overclockers.com posted an editorial today about copyrights and this quote neatly sums up the issue: Right now, if you're somebody "sharing" MP3s, the RIAA can sue you for $150,000 a song. It can't sue you for less than $750 a song. Such limits make a lot of sense when the people breaking the law were setting up factories to make and commercially sell LPs. It doesn't make sense when the people breaking the law spend effectively nothing to make copies, aren't selling them for anything, and can offer many times more songs than any record bootlegger without even realizing it.If you want to put people in jail, it's one thing to try to prove that a group of adults who had to spend a lot of money setting up a record-making factory knew what they were doing; it's quite another to prove that about someone still taking Introduction to Puberty. It's one thing to put 25 or 250 or even 2500 people in jail; it's quite another to essentially jail most of your teenagers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epp_b Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 (edited) The last time I checked, we still have a democratic society in North America.Operative phrase being "the last time" ...The only way this can be solved is with legislators who have a clue about technology and sadly, 95% of them don't.95% sounds awfully optimistic. i've posted before, and dvorak published a couple of days ago, that we can alter the way the entertainement industries screws, er, um, runs if vote with our wallets and simply stay away.Well, you see, that doesn't work because the **AA does this thing called "spin-doctoring" and "bribing", which causes politicians to "believe" that lost sales and lower profits are due to so-called piracy. Then, they make laws that punish teenagers and children more than murderers and kiddie porn downloaders (which, ironically, is a lot closer to the real definition of "pirate" ... coincidence? I think not)again, it's up to us. i find dvd's on sale; i refuse to pay$28 for one. (no, i don't download or otherwise pirate, either.)I don't even bother, I just watch it when it plays on TV a year or two after it's initial release. It's like I need to see a movie opening tomorrow, yesterday. Edited May 17, 2006 by epp_b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cluttermagnet Posted May 18, 2006 Author Share Posted May 18, 2006 I don't even bother, I just watch it when it plays on TV a year or two after it's initial release. It's like I need to see a movie opening tomorrow, yesterday.I go it one better and don't even bother to watch it on TV two years later. I find that I really don't miss it. The film medium used to rule my life somewhat. Never again. It's quite interesting, once you've won back your life, to watch others watching TV as if you're an alien exploring Earth for the first time. It's a rather pathetic spectacle. Such vacuous stuff that causes those occasional bright blue and red flashes in those lonely, darkened rooms.a point dvorak brought up, the single decent track on a 13 track cd is quite valid. why pay $16 for a song when i can download it for $1 on itunes?A point I've been making in these forums for several years, myself. Most music albums have only one or two good songs, the rest are worthless. Exceptions to this do occur, but are rare. But why pay a dollar to download it? For a few bucks more, I can buy the CD or vinyl on Ebay and 'own it', lies from the likes of RIAA and Sony not withstanding. I can re-record it to my heart's content. (No, I don't sell it, and only rarely share it- it's for personal use, 'fair use') Let them go ahead and criminalize my very breathing, the beating of my heart. That doesn't make it a criminal act. I am sooooooo not buying their crap any more! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 I have to actually slot in a timeframe for watching a movie!The week is just too packed otherwise.And yes, I don't watch much if any commercial television and have DVDs to watch, VHS tapes to view, and audio CDs to listen to if I want to, but I generally will listen to the our rips of our CDs to mp3 for the same reasons cited ... I can choose what I want to listen to and what I don't.I loved Cory Doctorow's Microsoft Research DRM talk - (there are many places on the web to read this in HTML, PDF, or listen to it on audio in mp3 format listed on this page which is why I am listing this main link instead of one of the more flowery links). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cluttermagnet Posted May 19, 2006 Author Share Posted May 19, 2006 I loved Cory Doctorow's Microsoft Research DRM talk - (there are many places on the web to read this in HTML, PDF, or listen to it on audio in mp3 format listed on this page which is why I am listing this main link instead of one of the more flowery links). Great speech, Bambi! I read it straight through. But you know, he makes just too much sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden11 Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 You need to refresh your definition on the word "steal". Downloading a song "illegally" is not the same as swiping something from a retail store because you can't apply real-life, physical restrictions to digital content. It's defined as "taking away a sale", which still isn't the same. And, if you equate "taking away a sale" to "stealing", advising someone not to purchase a certain product would also equate to "stealing"!Did you buy the rights from the owner? Yes or No question. Ok, now apply that to the dictionary definition of "steal": "To take (the property of another) without right or permission" [American Heritage Dictionary - 4th Edition] The owner of that content did not give you right or permission to take it: virtually, physically, or in any other form. Ergo: It is stolen. By the exact literal unequivocal definition of the word "steal". The rest of what you've espoused is just petty simple-minded (no offence) justification for theft. Pure and simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 Well, truthfully, I think that yes or no answer would greatly depend on the time frame we are talking about ... are we talking about " .. in history Patty, before they changed the water" (Firesign Theatre quote), when we still had our 'fair use' of what we buy, or now in the post DMCA "Holocaust" where a child can be sued for being ignorant of the 'revised' laws? Sorry, I hope you know that was just a frustrated response to a really sad topic. It wasn't directed at you, Marsden11.The laws have changed so much since they 'changed the water' ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden11 Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 The question was: Did you buy it, did you exchange "fair value" with the owner? I'm not debating whether preventing you from using the license you PURCHASED is right or wrong. Epp_b which I was responding to was stating that, effectively, "you can't steal digital devices". If you exchanged "fair value" with the owner of the device, be that device physical or "virtual", then we have an entirely different discussion. And one I'm happy to take-up with you, at least in the theoretical. But, frankly, it's OT to the post I was responding to. The "Yes/No" still remains: Did you buy the license to the property? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden11 Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 Odd yes, but there is an exchange of "fair value." If broadcast radio - you listen to advertising. If satellite radio like XM - you pay through subscription. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epp_b Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 (edited) Did you buy the rights from the owner? Yes or No question.Ok, now apply that to the dictionary definition of "steal": "To take (the property of another) without right or permission" [American Heritage Dictionary - 4th Edition]The owner of that content did not give you right or permission to take it: virtually, physically, or in any other form. Ergo: It is stolen. By the exact literal unequivocal definition of the word "steal".The rest of what you've espoused is just petty simple-minded (no offence) justification for theft. Pure and simple.You're assuming that ideas are "ownable", which is also the major problem with the ridiculous patent situation in the US.Second, digital distribution is a marketing phenonemon that **AA needs to get a grasp on and update their business to adhere to. It is market competition, not outright theft.How many horse and buggy makers do you see today? How many do think sued automobile manufacturers? Ever heard of oil lantern makers suing light bulb manufacturers? (yes, I'm "stealing" this from a Slashdotter, but I think, as a Slashdotter, he would agree that you can't "steal" ideas).Great speech, Bambi! I read it straight through. But you know, he makes just too much sense.I read that one too a little while ago -- it was the best article I'd read in a long time and still is, today. Edited May 20, 2006 by epp_b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cluttermagnet Posted May 20, 2006 Author Share Posted May 20, 2006 (edited) Porgy Jailed- Found in Possession of 'Nothing' Catfish Row, SCApril 19, 2007Catfish Row resident Porgy was taken into custody yesterday after being found to be illegally in possession of 'nothing'. Mega corporation Sony recently copyrighted 'nothing' as intellectual property, in perpetuity, and in concert with the RI*A, is vigorously enforcing their rights. According to Sherrif Luger Axehandle, Mr. Porgy's own testimony was damning. He freely told sheriff's deputies that he had "plenty of nothing":"I got no lock on de door,(Dat's no way to be)Dey can steal de rug from de floorDat's okeh wid me,'Cause de things dat I prizeLike de stars in de skiesAll are free..."Sony has also asserted its exclusive right to 'de stars in de skies' in recent court actions, putting low-life intellectual property thieves on notice that their cavalier disregard for the law is no longer going to be tolerated by society. Mr. Porgy will no doubt face a stiff fine and possibly a jail sentence when he is arraigned before Judge Dread in Sector 7 Inferior Court on Monday morning. :whistling:Sector 7 residents are reminded that the only legal use and posession of 'de stars in de skies' is within approved poetry on a properly obtained greeting card from a properly licensed greeting card supplier. Violators risk criminal sanctions if discovered using 'de stars in de skies' in unlicensed poetry or other gray market poetic conveyances. Even quietly whispering it to your significant other is just not worth the risk. Pat Hat, Veteran News Reporter Edited May 20, 2006 by Cluttermagnet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden11 Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 You're assuming that ideas are "ownable", which is also the major problem with the ridiculous patent situation in the US.Second, digital distribution is a marketing phenonemon that **AA needs to get a grasp on and update their business to adhere to. It is market competition, not outright theft.How many horse and buggy makers do you see today? How many do think sued automobile manufacturers? Ever heard of oil lantern makers suing light bulb manufacturers? (yes, I'm "stealing" this from a Slashdotter, but I think, as a Slashdotter, he would agree that you can't "steal" ideas).[sigh]Leave it to the slashdotters. Maybe we should rename 'em "slashdittoers"? You don't patent an idea. You can patent a PROCESS. And that has to be exhibited to the point where it "can be reduced to practice by one reasonably skilled in the art". You can patent a concept that again "can be reduced to practice by one reasonably skilled in the art". And you can patent anything that has already been reduced to practice. And this has NOTHING to do with stealing music and/or software. Music and software are neither "ideas". They are tangible assets reduced to practice. Your final paragraph has nothing to do with anything anywhere at anytime. It's like that random junk they throw into word problems to attempt to confuse the real question. Most will know how ignor it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epp_b Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 You don't patent an idea. You can patent a PROCESS.Ouch. Perhaps you haven't been introduced to Amazon's "One-Click Buy" patent. Yes, you can actually patent that. Ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b2cm Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 If you don't agree with how a business does its business, don't patronize its products. If you think you know a better way, get into the business yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epp_b Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 (edited) If you don't agree with how a business does its business, don't patronize its products. If you think you know a better way, get into the business yourself.While I agree with you, I will also note that this is easier said than done (isn't everything ? )I try to patronize the media industry as little as possible, but for other things, some people (me included) don't have much of a choice. I'm not particularly fond about how Microsoft does business, but I have little choice for alternatives. Not because they don't exist (they certainly do), but they don't have the capabilities or compatibilty I need for my job. And, yes, that is the fault of the industry (Microsoft included) that proper standards don't interoperate well.As for making a new business, I would love to see someone work to build an online music store and contracts with artists to sell their music handcuff-free without DRM (heck I could probably do it myself, but...). But it's almost impossible, as RIAA would stomp on a business like this with legal rigamarole and, their favorite method, bribes. I think it would be near impossible for someone who isn't already wealthy and/or doesn't have legal knowledge to startup a business like this without being crushed by RIAA.It's too bad, really. Edited May 21, 2006 by epp_b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lewmur Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 (edited) While I agree with you, I will also note that this is easier said than done (isn't everything ? )I try to patronize the media industry as little as possible, but for other things, some people (me included) don't have much of a choice. I'm not particularly fond about how Microsoft does business, but I have little choice for alternatives. Not because they don't exist (they certainly do), but they don't have the capabilities or compatibilty I need for my job. And, yes, that is the fault of the industry (Microsoft included) that proper standards don't interoperate well.As for making a new business, I would love to see someone work to build an online music store and contracts with artists to sell their music handcuff-free without DRM (heck I could probably do it myself, but...). But it's almost impossible, as RIAA would stomp on a business like this with legal rigamarole and, their favorite method, bribes. I think it would be near impossible for someone who isn't already wealthy and/or doesn't have legal knowledge to startup a business like this without being crushed by RIAA.It's too bad, really.Patents and Copyrights are suppose to exist to encourage innovation. But they have been perverted to protect special interest groups. It is a total perversion when laws are passed that actually make innovation, or even attempted innovation, a crime. Edited May 21, 2006 by lewmur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epp_b Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 Patents and Copywrites are suppose to exist to encourage innovation. But they have been perverted to protect special interest groups. It is a total perversion when laws are passed that actually make innovation, or even attempted innovation, a crime.Hammer + Nail + Head = HIT!This is further expanded in Jim Rapoza's recent column on eWeek: Prepare to do Battle. An excellent read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 Yes it is an excellent read epp_b ... actually based my BambisMusings posting today on that article. There are so many intertwined things and they all lead straight back to the DMCA!Anne's article was also very good, also at eWeek and linked from the article you posted epp_b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epp_b Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 ...actually based my BambisMusings posting today on that article. There are so many intertwined things and they all lead straight back to the DMCA!Just read it - good post and I like the new look Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 Thanks epp_b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.