Submitted by “Over 500 million people use the Internet, and over a billion computers are deployed around the world. It has become impossible to ignore the issue of content management and access. Call it Digital Rights Management if you will, or call it working out how to manage copying in the digital realm. We need to solve the problem of how digital information will be shared, and an equally important need to set open and wide reaching standards. It has been more than ten years since computers and the Internet really started to take off, and there is still no coherent approach to restricted (or unrestricted) information sharing. This is a serious problem.”
Bizarre, I went to look at the article and it informed me that Mozilla < 1.3 was not supported.
I’m using Safari!
Same situation here
Why is this post modded down? AFAIK he didn’t say anything illegal…
The problem is that the world inside computers, and the Internet has no regulation. For example, there is no advertising standards board. Any company can claim anything they want or advertise any way they want. We might not realise it, but there are strict rules about advertising (at least in the UK) that advertisers on TV and Radio have to conform to. Just imagine if no-rules advertising came to TV?
Companies are taking this unregulated and lawless place in computers and inventing the rules how they see fit for us.
The Internet isn’t TV or radio. I’m sure Joseph Stalin or any paranoid/ruthless government would view people having free speach as ‘lawless chaos’ and apparently you do too.
Yeah I know you aren’t against free speach, or so you think. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Edited 2006-03-29 14:02
There is a difference between freedom and regulation. What if I were to express my freedom to go to my neighbours’ and batter them to death? TV and Radio are regulated for our safety, and for the well being of the medium.
What would you rather – your “freedom” taken away from you in the digital world because corporations get to decide your rights, or specifc regulation aimed to prevent corporations from deciding your rights digitally.
I feel that you’re confusing the American idea of Freedom (I have the freedom to do anything I want, even if that encroaches on other people’s freedoms) and the European idea of freedom (I have the freedom to decide what I choose to do, as long as that does not impose on other’s own freedoms)
the American idea of Freedom (I have the freedom to do anything I want, even if that encroaches on other people’s freedoms)
That freedom society is sooo hypocryte.
I wonder why they haven’t had any sexual revolution like we europeans had back in the ’60’s.Is it because of the majority of pron coming from hollywood (strong lobby that desires an artificial toboo that benefits sales?,Is it because of gods country?)
the European idea of freedom (I have the freedom to decide what I choose to do, as long as that does not impose on other’s own freedoms)
Yes i rather prefer this one.
-Awkwardly a lot of people condemn other peoples experiences and beliefs just because they haven’t witnessed,yet they belief in something nobody has seen either (God,the holy spirit,budah,Allah,Jehova…)-
s it because of the majority of pron coming from hollywood (strong lobby that desires an artificial toboo that benefits sales?,Is it because of gods country?)
I think so, but not just porn. The entertainment industry in general and other industries as. Sex is naughty. That’s what they teach us in America, and the more naughty they say it is, the more we want it. The right-wing groups and Christians preaching against it couldn’t do these people a bigger favor if they tried and are probably at least half responsible for porn being as big a moneymaker as it is. The whole thing works out so perfect for people in the adult entertainment industry, it’s scarey.
re vitae
Nicely said.
It’s indeed scarey.
In an attempt to protect our childeren should we eradicate everything potentially dangerous? Or should we just give them a fair chance of good sincere education and accept life as it is with all it’s ups and downs so far it is behind our control?
I think the whole internet is a mirror of our society.You can find everything (good and bad) if you want too.The patent circus under the noun of intellectual property is getting out of hand.A DRM isn’t a solution.The proposed solution is far worse than the situation itself and affects us all (artists included).
I hope some come up with a reasonable solution to the situation and find an humane referential fit that both protects intellectual property and at the same time doesn’t limit peoples freedom and stimulate innovation.Maybe (new) companies that drag artists with them can realize it.Time for some revolution (Blue ray?).
We’d have to eradicate ourselves. We’re the most dangerous thing of all.
No, it’s all about teaching kids the right way, and many aren’t up to it. I’m not up to the challenge, myself, so I don’t have kids. But if someone is going to have them, they really need to be raising them right and teach them the right way without trying to hide real life from them ie. “This is sex, and these are the dangers that come along with it..” It’s easy to preach when I don’t have kids of my own, but we really need to be doing a better job of it.
Thing I don’t get is that you have conservatives in Europe too, but either yours are not as hardline repressive as ours, or you just keep them hidden away better?
Sure we have conservatism and/or (ultra)right/left wing *fractions*.People here just don’t vote on them (fortunately!).I think the political climate in Europe before WOII was pretty similar to the american.The polital system thereafter became more diverse.The first five years of the 40’s made us sick of those right wing hawks :-)I’m sure the 60’s have had a major role too later on.Provo movement,student uprise,childeren questioning more their parents,sexual revolution,etc.Resulted more in a consensus community where everyone in princype has his/her say.There are more political parties to choose from.And the political influence of campaign money is insignificant.Debate and content are more significant.Well in theory:-)
In the end people all around the world want the same and are the same regardless of race, religeon,cultural background i guess.
RE: Kroc
Hey I think we’ve posted back & forth before.
Yes you have a point, your unique perspective. I acknowledge your point of view.
The first paragraph of your first post was off topic imho. DRM has nothing to do with regulation of corporations. It has to do with corporations trying to control our use of their content. Your second one sentence line of “Companies are taking this unregulated and lawless place in computers and inventing the rules how they see fit for us.” is on topic.
In fact, I agree with you that corporations should not inhibit or be able to determine our freedoms. Absolutely. So if you feel that way, why do you want to determine -their- freedoms and rights through regulating them?
Can’t you allow them to be? Just defend your own freedoms. Tollerate their existance. Of course, defend your own freedoms. The two are *not* mutually exclusive as you imply. Read your post again and see how it reads that you think that the two can not exist together, they can. A society that values freedoms will provide those freedoms equally for all. Corporations get their freedoms and so do individuals. It’s called “rule of law.” Not, mob rule.
Mob rule would say that since there more people than corporations, that we should take freedoms away from corporations and treat them as second class citizens (look at what communism does for an even more extreme example). Why should that be seen as an only option? Can’t you allow everyone to have equal freedoms? In fact, it isn’t freedom until it’s equal for all, by definition.
So I say again, you are not one who respects freedom. You value your own freedoms, thats entirely different.
However your fear that your freedoms may be taken away from you or limited by corporations cohorting with law makersis justified. Defend your freedoms, it’s your responsibility.
Edited 2006-03-29 17:20
While I agree there is a difference between freedom and regulation, regulating information through a Government is never a good idea. TV and Radio were regulated for our safety? Safety from what? You have a choice when it comes to watching what’s on TV and listening to whats on Radio. If you don’t like something that is being said flick the channel, change the station. The human brain like any other system processes the input it receives to form thoughts and opinions. If that input is severely regulated, the opinions formed will be very biased.
Personal responsibility is a big factor. For Example, consider the piece of Literature, Anarchist’s Cookbook. It has material most governments would consider harmful and subversive. How many people who have read the book have turned into Anarchists and blown up buildings? I haven’t, nor have majority of people I know who have read the book. It did enlighten us on a different school of thought and we were able to take that knowledge into consideration when we form an opinion.
DRM is a very grey area. Vendor lock-in and total dependence on the format of media distribution are very real issues. So is financial remuneration for the Artist and the right of Corporations choosing how they want to distribute content they legally own. I think it boils down to personal choices again. I object to DRM and hence I will refrain for purchasing such content.
What it all boils down to is Corporates will sell what people want. If DRM is boycotted en masse, it wont succeed. As long as there is a market for such content, DRM will exist. If you don’t like DRM , don’t buy DRM’ed content. Let the artist/creator know you won’t be buying DRM’ed content through various communities and fan clubs. We have the power to manifest change, we just never exercise it. Its all a conscious decision away.
this is a scary title for an article. ironic i was just thining about drm.
great read.
I think it is more of a coincidence and not ironic.
Edited 2006-03-29 13:00
be it as it may. you are correct!
does anybody know if hd-dvd or blu-ray will have a non-drm version?
There is no agreed universal definition of DRM, or of copyright including fair use, or of what a computer user’s freedoms really are in respect of third-party content. Every country is being left to make its own definitions, form its own regulatory framework and its own sanctions, etc.
This means that the introduction of DRM is bound to be a huge mess. Companies will find that DRM schemes are allowed in one country but banned in another, and the same will apply to what ordinary users do. Jaul-time here, nothing doing there.
A powerful argument against DRM at the moment is that it should not be introduced until its working are agreed and set by an international convention of some kind, much like the old copyright convention. Otherwise, DRM will be left to the corporations. Since two key attractions of DRM for corporations are that it allows you to destroy competition and to manipulate prices articially, DRM without international agreement and stringent regulation (which does not yet exist) will simply be a charter for robber barons.
With any luck our children will have enough sense to know a robber baron when they see one, and reach for the 12-gauge pronto. In the meantime, stand by to repel boarders …
Well the problem isn’t really DRM its that DRM chooses platforms. Currently the biggest platform is iTunes which supports Mac and Windows. Linux isn’t a uniform os so what’s needed is for the major *nix vendors to lobby for a native solution (Sun, Suse, Linspire for example).
The fear of DRM is as you rightly point out moleskin – robber barons. Some (not all) of the DRM proponents are wanting us to buy one copy of a song for our IPod, a seperate copy for our car stereo – its coming trust me, the cd as we know it is dieing, future cd’s will be data disks filled with DRM files that only play on “trusted” devices so be prepared to have to buy all new car stereos again. This would close the “resale gap” as they call it. Print media is probably decades before an electronic standard is final but the idea is shared by all. RIAA hates your garage sales and they really hate used record stores. They see that as revenue losses because they think they own the album and not the copyright. Sadly they are in our politicians backpockets of both parties so laws which contradict previous laws such as the DMCA they pass in favor of the robber barons.
The only choice we have is to only use indy artists (until they get discovered and sell out anyway) and use .ogg. Video solutions however there is none for until an open solution can be perfected that will convert our home movies (that is what you use video for and not p*rn isnt it? heh) into it without having to have the illegal mpeg solution on our computer.
This would close the “resale gap” as they call it.
You mean they enforced the circle?
Video solutions however there is none for until an open solution can be perfected that will convert our home movies
A quicker solution is time limit ancient patents,royalties,whatever so your video solution can be based straight away without any legal backdraft on the existing patented codecs at hand.Furthermore muscic royalties should only be valid for the artist and non transferrable,and preferrably time limited too.
The only obstacle would be to find a reasonable time frame in which all those obvious and fair artist protections are valid.Correct me if i’m wrong but this way there would be both protection of intellectual property and a stimulus of innovation to create new technology/artistic-content and earning a new (10 years?) period of patent.
Sadly they are in our politicians backpockets of both parties so laws which contradict previous laws such as the DMCA they pass in favor of the robber barons.
Off topic:There should be a DRM for money heh.
I think the article is a good introduction to the problem, but people has been talking about DRM being good or bad for a long time. I think it’s time to talk about: if DRM is bad, what are the alternatives to keep content creators earning money? I mean, nobody works for nothing. I’m not talking about the big companies, I’m talking about authors.
The author of the article claims that copyright enforcement is enough, which is an absurd claim. We’ve seen how well that works.
Maybe copyright is enought to avoid other people making money from your work without your agreement. The problem is that the industry is earning less money because people is getting free copies.
I’ve been thinking about DRM, alternatives, and so. The industry tries to keep old ways of distributing content. Digital media is WAY cheaper to distribute over internet that over physical media. That’s good for everybody. I think there would be less piracy if music and movies (and games and so) were cheaper, and they could be if released in digital format only.
Lots of fans would buy original downloads from authors’ sites, so authors would get a bigger piece of the cake if they distributed their work themselves (just hiring a good site), so even if the cake was smaller (less copies sold), they could do still a good bussiness (not taking into account money from live performances and so).
A song (or any other kind of file) just uploaded to the net is valuable, because it’s still not available in file sharing networks. Even after some time, the low number of copies makes downloads from file sharing networks very lengthy, so for some people it could be worth paying for the download. When most fans already have (and share) the file, the original one is worthless: most people won’t pay for it if they could get it for free.
I can imagine a nearby future where you get an e-mail when your favorite group releases a song so you were able to download it paying a reasonably high price. The same song could be bought cheaper after some weeks, or as a bargain after months.
Maybe copyright is enought to avoid other people making money from your work without your agreement.
This is also an interesting “utility” of copyright. A question on this: Why would society spend resources to that end?
I’ve been thinking about DRM, alternatives, and so. The industry tries to keep old ways of distributing content. Digital media is WAY cheaper to distribute over internet that over physical media. That’s good for everybody. I think there would be less piracy if music and movies (and games and so) were cheaper, and they could be if released in digital format only.
the problem is that retail just doesn’t work like that. people charge however much they think they can get away with. the cost to produce the item is often a relatively small consideration. digital music has shown us the way things are likely to go.
I’ve thought of a few ways, though they probably have their problems. In each case there is no restriction on the work of art once it has been released. Artist here means author/musician/photographer, etc..
1. Popular artists (or groups of artists, or studio) could set an amount of money they would have to receive before they create another work. So if you are a fan, you give them a few bucks. Other people do the same, until the amount is reached. Some may think of it as giving back for the groups last work, or as contributing toward the next one.
2. As in the olden days a wealthy person or company could commision an artist to produce a work of art.
3. Grants are given for artists from a government. How much they get depends on their past sucess as an artist. New artists would get a smaller amount to start up. Some governments, like mine (Canada) already do this to some small degree.
Probably none of these would sustain the billion dollar industries that are the music and movie industries today. But it’s a harsh reality that in the digital age music, movies, and books have become infinitely reproducible (once the original is done). Artists may have to stop thinking in terms of how many copies of one work they can sell and start concentrating on selling the original once (for a higher price of course). This would be how it is now for some artists already, like painters.
A side bonus to less money being involved is that only talented artists who do it because it’s their passion would be in the field.
I mean, nobody works for nothing. I’m not talking about the big companies, I’m talking about authors. —drfelip
Simple answer? If you don’t work within the media cartels you don’t work. And the **IAAs wonder why they get scoffed at and booed off the stage whenever they claim to be working for the artists…
–bornagainpenguin
Copyright is not intended to be used as a profit mechanism. That was never it’s intent. The intent of copyright was to prevent monopolies on the means of publication and distribution — something electronic technologies has more or less accomplished on its own.
So, the question is, why do we feel content creators have a right to earn money from the content alone? Clearly, they spent time, effort, and maybe even money to produce something, but I’m not sure the compensation model the “content industry” is tenable.
Historically, artists either created in their spare time while they earned a living by other means, took creative jobs on consignment, or cultivated a relationship with one or more patrons. This protocol still works today, not just on the single-artist scale, but also on the PBS-scale.
Fair Use Circumvention Kits are only going to serve to alienate consumers and dilute the value of artistic works in general by making the “content” difficult or undesirable to work with. I see effect that spilling over into non-FUCd works.
Individual artist’s situations probably won’t change, but I’m guessing the “content industry” as a whole has to come up with a new model to make money or fade into obsolesence.
DRM, ‘Trusted Computing’, and the Future of Our shareholders.
-Most people who download or copy dvd’s wouldn’t otherwise have bought an original.
-Most *wood movies can get million dollars of profit with the cinema displays alone.
-Did i say the title is inapropiate?
DRM is everything but protecting vulnerable juvenals against ¨malignant¨ content.
Awkward enough today it’s OK to experience atrocities such as war casualties,traffic accidents,etc via diverse media but a partly nude woman is out of topic.
It’s highly hypocryte to see many life documentaries where the nude parts of a whatever victim are blinded out but you still may see their smashed body parts.
A lot of people are talking DRM allowing media companies to reverse the liberties the digital age has given to the general public. For me it’s going a lot further. There are a lot of freedoms that we took for granted in the “analogue” age that are being eroded. Things like lending a film to a friend, making a backup of a CD or taping a program off live TV are going to be impossible without specific permission from the media company concerned (assuming DRM works how it’s supposed to).
Another issue with DRM is that there is no digital equivalent to a public library (at least not in scope) so whilst people with limited funding have been traditionally able to still have access to media in the forms of Books/Films/CDs/etc (for no or little fee) in the DRM age it doesn’t look like that’s going to be possible. For example Books have already started being published in a digital format only. In which case only people with enough money (or possibly: that are willing to break the law) are going to have access to certain forms of information/knowledge.
“A lot of people are talking DRM allowing media companies to reverse the liberties the digital age has given to the general public. For me it’s going a lot further. There are a lot of freedoms that we took for granted in the “analogue” age that are being eroded. Things like lending a film to a friend, making a backup of a CD or taping a program off live TV are going to be impossible without specific permission from the media company concerned (assuming DRM works how it’s supposed to). ”
Or maybe we took for granted that we could break the law and not consider it a big deal. Is it your birthright to copy anything that someone else created even if they want to maintain their rights of it? In the copyrighted content arena, they sold it to cover their costs and hopefully make some money over the top.
The unspoken consequence of breaking copyrights is that the creator loses incentive to create the content in the first place. In that situation, we all lose. Not saying that some artist may chose to CopyLeft or GPL, they can do that too. If CopyLeft was the only option though, that would have consequences.
The unspoken consequence of breaking copyrights is that the creator loses incentive to create the content in the first place. In that situation, we all lose.
Yes, depends on the content i would say.
The prime is in my opinion wether the control right in the case of the DRM should be in the hands of a small buisiness minority that affects all people.
Likewise should one country govern all internet routers?
I think we all agree here that the current regulation circus isn’t sufficient today and maybe a threat tomorrow.
“The prime is in my opinion weather the control right in the case of the DRM should be in the hands of a small business minority that affects all people. ”
Hmm… Good point. This, to me, sounds like a monopoly issue. Until it happens though, it doesn’t exist. If it does come to be that a select few have control of most or all digital media distribution, then deal with it as a monopoly issue, not a DRM one. Am I mistaken?
Until this happens, why worry about it? It doesn’t exist. Once it does exist, then you can say “Look, there’s an elite few who control our media! Monopoly!”
But to raise hell about a theoretical monopoly is, plainly, a waste of energy. Seems to me the task at hand is to wait & see what happens. We might be pleasantly surprised. The market may dictate a very diverse distribution system. The Internet is very dynamic, to say the least.
Hmm… Good point. This, to me, sounds like a monopoly issue. Until it happens though, it doesn’t exist. If it does come to be that a select few have control of most or all digital media distribution, then deal with it as a monopoly issue, not a DRM one. Am I mistaken?
Until this happens, why worry about it? It doesn’t exist. Once it does exist, then you can say “Look, there’s an elite few who control our media! Monopoly!”
sometimes, when you can see a problem in the horizon, it’s better to put safeguards in place rather than just hoping for the best and having to deal with possible mess on the other side.
“A lot of people are talking DRM allowing media companies to reverse the liberties the digital age has given to the general public. For me it’s going a lot further. There are a lot of freedoms that we took for granted in the “analogue” age that are being eroded. Things like lending a film to a friend, making a backup of a CD or taping a program off live TV are going to be impossible without specific permission from the media company concerned (assuming DRM works how it’s supposed to). ”
Or maybe we took for granted that we could break the law and not consider it a big deal. Is it your birthright to copy anything that someone else created even if they want to maintain their rights of it? In the copyrighted content arena, they sold it to cover their costs and hopefully make some money over the top.
The things I mentioned are legal in a lot of countries, even when they are not the law as it is written is not applied (or at least it wasn’t for a very long time) suggesting perhaps that that’s not how it was originally intended (i.e. not to restrict the consumer but to prevent exploitation).
The unspoken consequence of breaking copyrights is that the creator loses incentive to create the content in the first place. In that situation, we all lose. Not saying that some artist may chose to CopyLeft or GPL, they can do that too. If CopyLeft was the only option though, that would have consequences.
I guess Michelangelo or Homer or the people that created any work before copyright was invented had no incentive. People are always free to charge for the original work or for live perfomances but that shouldn’t restrict the free flow of knowladge.
DRM doesn’t just prevent copying however it completely locks what the user can do with a piece of work, including selling or even giving it away, it also takes away the limited rights given to the consumer under copyright law (i.e. fair use).
Yes I see your points. Yes even here it is/was legal, I think, to copy analog sources one time, or something like that.
In Michelangelo’s or Homer’s time, copying works wasn’t really very possible on any significant scale, remember. Those were the days before photography and printing. If it had been possible to mass duplicate their artistic works, they would have wanted some sort of rights protection to their creations, I’d bet!
Remember that, deneding on the country of origin, copyrights expire. So Homer’s works would almost certainly be freely available even if they were copyrighted in his time.
I’m no lawyer so I don’t know why rights are divided up like they are.. Copying, broadcasting, marketing, etc etc.. It’s complicated and I’m sure the lawyers love it that way.
Remember, if you don’t like the rights you’ll get when you buy a product, DON’T BUY IT. Your dollars are far more powerful than anything else. Competition dictates that the company that offers the best product and business model, will usually succeed. DRM very definitely relates to the market economics model.
One alternative to all this mess is to make the government provide music, sort of like how with communism the government took control of all production. I can see the latest hit album “Love your ruler or die in the gulag.”
JJ
In Michelangelo’s or Homer’s time, copying works wasn’t really very possible on any significant scale, remember. Those were the days before photography and printing. If it had been possible to mass duplicate their artistic works, they would have wanted some sort of rights protection to their creations, I’d bet!
Homer’s work, I believe, was originally solely orally based so people were free to copy it as much as they wanted and the work would not have survived if they hadn’t. Even if it was written down people were still free to copy his plays without requiring accuracy/lots of copies.
As for Michelangelo, part of the point of the work was the craft of the artist. So anyone creating an exact copy would have been equally worthy of praise (if that was possible).
As for performers (e.g. musicians) then the great ones will always be rewarded by the public (again as they were before copyright) and there is plenty of money to made from live performances for those willing to put in the work.
The point is that creative works were produced long before copyright and therefore copyright is not a requirement to insure that creative works are continued to be produced.
If copyright is all about encouraging the creation of the work in the first place why is it still applied 70 years after the original authors death? Who sits down to write a book or compose a piece of music thinking I hope my relatives are still getting paid for this 70 years after I’m dead?
“If copyright is all about encouraging the creation of the work in the first place why is it still applied 70 years after the original authors death? Who sits down to write a book or compose a piece of music thinking I hope my relatives are still getting paid for this 70 years after I’m dead?”
Your heirs to your estate, that’s who. I presume you knew that. That’s part of the incentive to create works, even though you don’t seem to accept that as reasonable.
“Homer’s work, I believe, was originally solely orally based so people were free to copy it as much as they wanted and the work would not have survived if they hadn’t. Even if it was written down people were still free to copy his plays without requiring accuracy/lots of copies. ”
That was his choice, or if he was creating works today, he’d have a choice to copyright it or copyleft it. This doesn’t relate to DRM, imo.
“As for Michelangelo, part of the point of the work was the craft of the artist. So anyone creating an exact copy would have been equally worthy of praise (if that was possible). ”
Right. Today with digital copying so easy to do it’s an entirely different thing so what applied hundreds of years ago doesn’t apply today. The point of the copyright holders is that duplication is simplistic and even facilitated in the digital realm. There was no digital realm in the 17th century or whenever he painted the chapel. Your example doesn’t apply to DRM.
“The point is that creative works were produced long before copyright and therefore copyright is not a requirement to insure that creative works are continued to be produced.”
Right, absolutely. Not a *requirement* but certainly holding rights to artistic and other creations is a HUGE incentive for many people! You can’t deny that. Are you saying that everyone who creates music, paying all sorts of studio fees and the like, don’t care if they don’t make any money from it? How can you speak for them? Maybe they’ll make money from their tour but that’s another creation in a sense. The studio creation is not really the concert creation, exactly. Sure it might be good marketing but maybe it’s really bad marketing? Maybe their live concerts suck because their manager can’t organize one. Maybe their studio creations are all anyone cares about. Who are you to dictate to them how they’ll make money from their art?
Right, Linux would not be where it is today if it were copyrighted by Torvalds. He could have gone the Sun/Apple/HP/IBM/MS way and copyrighted it. He had a *choice* and he chose the model you happen to agree with. We all won. His freedom to choose wasn’t forced upon him by people who are intollerant of people holding legal rights to creative works.
“As for performers (e.g. musicians) then the great ones will always be rewarded by the public (again as they were before copyright) and there is plenty of money to made from live performances for those willing to put in the work. ”
Of course. Many great artists can only create works if the work pays for itself. They need the freedom to choose many different ways to distribute it. It’s none of your business, imho, if they decide to hold rights to something they created. Do you *have* to have their creations? Are you going to die if you don’t get it? Is it really life threatening? I could see your point if you were going to starve to death or something but the fact is, it’s just not required for your emminent survival. Are you so set on profiting, manipulating or obtaining for free, their works? Do you want to put your name on their works? That’s one thing that copyrights restrict.
It’s fun to enjoy with someone else’s (artistic) creation. Is joy in life something you get or something you have already within you? If you think that joy in life comes from having, then you are like most people. If you realize that joy comes from within you, primarily, you’ll see that this issue just isn’t that important. Most people go through life wanting things because they think that joy comes from external things and situations. This is the ego, the false self. Read Eckhart Tolle’s books to understand, in depth, what I’m talkinga bout.
Here is something he’d likely say:
It is as it is. Accept it as it is right now. Then your actions can come from a place of peace, not inner conflict. Peaceful actions are far more powerful than those of non-acceptance.
It’s none of your business, imho, if they decide to hold rights to something they created.
Why not? I pay tax to give them the right to hold it in the first place. Why isn’t it my business when MY money is used to fine and inprison pepople I morally agree with?
Edited 2006-03-29 23:49
>You can’t deny that. Are you saying that everyone who creates music, paying all sorts of studio fees and the like, don’t care if they don’t make any money from it?
Why people always making this black vs. white comparisons? Nobody says that artists have no right to earn money. But i’m sure that artist can make a living without restricting what people do in private and non-commercial.
Society should think about whether we want to grant such a monopoly or not. I think society should only grant such a monopoly if the society as a whole profits from it and that’s not the case with todays copyright.
>The studio creation is not really the concert creation, exactly. Sure it might be good marketing but maybe it’s really bad marketing? Maybe their live concerts suck because their manager can’t organize one. Maybe their studio creations are all anyone cares about.
And society shoud suffer from the mistakes of artists and managers?
>Who are you to dictate to them how they’ll make money from their art?
Who are they to dictate to the entire world what they do with their data on their PC/CD and what people do with their culture?
>Right, Linux would not be where it is today if it were copyrighted by Torvalds.
Linux _is_ copyrighted!
>It is as it is. Accept it as it is right now.
a bad idea. If people think like you recommend the US would still allow slavery, many countries in Europe would still have things like the death penalty and it would be no progress in the whole society.
If i think something went wrong. I think about it. I tell people about it. And i try to change things for a better. That’s what makes us human beeings, that’s what makes our society a democratic and free society. That’s the base for progress and for a better future.
Just listen to the words of Victor Hugo one of the most influential French Romantic writers of the 19th century:
“Before the publication, the author has an undeniable and unlimited right. Think of a man like Dante, Molière, Shakespeare. Imagine him at the time when he has just finished a great work. His manuscript is there, in front of him; suppose that he gets the idea to throw it into the fire; nobody can stop him. Shakespeare can destroy Hamlet, Molière Tartufe, Dante the Hell. But as soon as the work is published, the author is not any more the master. It is then that other persons seize it: call them what you will: human spirit, public domain, society. It is such persons who say: I am here; I take this work, I do with it what I believe I have to do, […] I possess it, it is with me from now on…”
Imagine a world where you were free to do what you want with unprotected content, and couldn’t do a thing that isn’t allowed by law to content that the author indicated should be protected, through DRM.
There’s something inherently selfish to demanding that copyrighted DVDs we buy in the shop should remain free to be copied. And it’s ironic this is touted as ‘just’ by idealogues.
The problem of course is that law differs per country (although copying copyrighted material is legal in none that I know of), and that DRM will be used to impose the will of the content creator: “I want you to be able to watch this DVD on only one device. If you want to see it elsewhere..pay more!”.
That’s the sort of thing that should be limited by law.
Providing content can be seen as a service, with attached terms of service. But in some countries, the possible extent of terms of service is bound by law.
Currently, there doesn’t seem to be much visionionary stuff happening, besides the usual suspects rushing to claim a stake in control of DRM, and thus control of content-consumption. This is one situation that would benefit from an international consortium representing all interests, forming a workable solution to be adopted by the legislative bodies of the major industrial countries.
DRM and Copyright is equally evil. Booth is designed to encumber sharing and enjoying knowledge and kulture.
The best we could do would be to drop all copyright laws, (drop patent laws in the proccess too). If people still wan’t to use DRM, that’s ok, but make sure that the competition between non-DRM and DRM products is fair.
If it PROOVES to be a problem that cpoyright doesn’t exists. THEN we should invent a BETTER solution to THAT problem.
Edited 2006-03-29 14:27
DRM and Copyright is equally evil. Booth is designed to encumber sharing and enjoying knowledge and kulture.
Utter nonsense. Copyright is about giving credit where credit’s due. With copyright, I cannot take a song written by The Boss, and claim it my own. Without copyright, this would be possible and you’d have a world with a lot of imposters.
Copyright is important especially for younger artists, who are trying to break through. With copyright, they can ensure their work isn’t stolen by an already ‘bigger’ artist (which is not an unlikely scenario: who’s gonna believe the unknown guy?), given they don’t sign any stupid contracts, of course.
Copyright was created by Congress (in the US) as a means to encourage the creation and transmission of works of Art.
I don’t think copyright has anything to do with giving credit. I can write a book and release it into the public domain with the author listed as myself. If somebody came along and said that they were the author they would be guilty of plagiarism at the very least. I could create a song, release it into the public domain and if a big name came along and tried to copyright it they would be doing so illegaly.
If somebody came along and said that they were the author they would be guilty of plagiarism at the very least.
Exactly, and there’d be nothing you can do, legally, since plagiarism is nor a criminal, nor a civil offense. You could jump up and down, but besides publicity it’d give you nothing.
I could create a song, release it into the public domain and if a big name came along and tried to copyright it they would be doing so illegaly.
See above. If the material is not copyrighted, then they can come along and do whatever they want with it, and there’d be nothing you could legally do to stop them.
THAT is why we have copyright. Suggesting we eliminate copyright is so narrowminded, it just ain’t funny anymore.
PS: copyright originated in France and the UK, not in the US.
Edited 2006-03-29 15:06
PS: copyright originated in France and the UK, not in the US.
Never said copyright was invented in the US. I was talking about the purpose of the law in the US and no I am not a US citizen but have knowledge about copyright in the US. From my perspective it seems that the majority of revenue producing copyrighted material originates in the US and US based companies seem to be pushing hardest for DRM it therefore seemed relevant to state the purpose of copyright law in that country.
Exactly, and there’d be nothing you can do, legally, since plagiarism is nor a criminal, nor a civil offense. You could jump up and down, but besides publicity it’d give you nothing.
…
If the material is not copyrighted, then they can come along and do whatever they want with it, and there’d be nothing you could legally do to stop them.
It would also be fraud in the general sense and possibly be fraud in tort law. Maybe a lawyer could tell us the range of actions that could be taken against the fraudster.
But in any event you remember Milli Vanilli. When it came to the attention of the public that they were committing fraud their career ended rather ubruptly.
THAT is why we have copyright.
That is not why the US has copyright (I don’t know about other countries). I think you mean “that is why we NEED copyright”. Different things.
Suggesting we eliminate copyright is so narrowminded, it just ain’t funny anymore.
Personally I would not eliminate copyright but I would reduce the period over which it can be enforced.
Edited 2006-03-29 15:31
Exactly, and there’d be nothing you can do, legally, since plagiarism is nor a criminal, nor a civil offense. You could jump up and down, but besides publicity it’d give you nothing.
Ok, I’m no expert in USA-laws, but in sweden it would be illegal to claim a work as your own, even if there would be no copyright. In sweden copyright is part of a law calld the right of origin for works of literature and art.
Besides, the interest in having credit go the correct person or organization is probably strong enough, and the technological facillities is available that it wouldn’t need to be regulated in law.
So I stand by my claim, copyright is evil.
>Utter nonsense. Copyright is about giving credit where credit’s due.
i think this is really short-sighted.
Sure copyright grants some kind of credit for the author. But copyright does much more. It restricts how i can use a work (copying, sharing and helping my friend) and it restricts how i can create new works, e.g. i can’t build upon existing works without infringing copyright law.
Copyright is much more than “giving credit where credit’s due”
Sure copyright grants some kind of credit for the author. But copyright does much more. It restricts how i can use a work (copying, sharing and helping my friend) and it restricts how i can create new works, e.g. i can’t build upon existing works without infringing copyright law.
It depends on the terms detailed in the specific copyright. The GPL is a copyright, as is the BSD liscence. Neither of those does what you say.
>It depends on the terms detailed in the specific copyright. The GPL is a copyright, as is the BSD liscence. Neither of those does what you say.
No, that are two complete different things! The GPL and BSD license are copyright licenses and not copyright by it’s own!
No, that are two complete different things! The GPL and BSD license are copyright licenses and not copyright by it’s own!
That’s exactly what I meant; that the GPL and BSD are copyright licences. Although I worded it wrong, the point still stands. The GPL and BSD licenses are copyright licenses which do not restrict anyones right to build upon prior work or share with others.
That is in direct contradiction to your claim that copyright takes away those freedoms. My whole operating system is copyrighted by someone, yet I still have the 4 freedoms of the GPL and in some cases the complete freedom of the BSD when it comes to what I can do with the code.
Imagine the situation where everything has an open source copyright licensce. Would you still argue that copyright takes away freedoms and is evil? That’d be pretty silly.
>That’s exactly what I meant; that the GPL and BSD are copyright licences. Although I worded it wrong, the point still stands. The GPL and BSD licenses are copyright licenses which do not restrict anyones right to build upon prior work or share with others.
Yes, this copyright _licenses_ doesn’t restrict you to build upon prior work or share with others. But copyright does!
Just because there are some copyright licenses wich gives you some rights back which copyright doesn’t grant you doesn’t mean that this licenses _are_ copyright.
Copyright creates many restrictions, now authors can choose a license to give people some freedom back.
But that’s a totally different thing: on the one side the copyright and on the other side some licenses an author may choose.
Copyright is much more than “giving credit where credit’s due”
Ideally yes.
But we aren’t human when we don’t have different interpretations.I would say:”Copyright can be more than “gaining/keeping credit where credit’s due”.
Copyright,patent,royalty,whatever the name of the beast is should in my sincere humble opinion be time limited and not transferrable to people other than the one who earned them.
Internet is all about sharing, so what’s the point in restricting users ability to share something they have? Enter businesses. That’s all DRM is, more money for media businesses.
I don’t agree with restricting people. I still think that music should be freely shared among us, like books, information and arts. If someone wants to put a lock in your freedom, why should allow them? Just don’t buy DRMed media. The whole system breaks if we don’t buy that shit.
The system we have right now *should* work. If someone is allowing others to download your copyrighted work, right now (legally), you *should* be able to stop them (and possibly even get some sort of reparation).
Trouble is, it only takes a very short period of time for say, your song, to be spread across the internet before you can even email your lawyer to have them find a name associated with the IP address that’s sharing your stuff.
It’s looking more and more like there’s really no way to stop digital copyright infringement (though, large-scale violators can currently still be effectively prosecuted). Some advice: musicians, start making your money from giving concerts, b/c your recorded music is just going to be shared. Movie-makers, start trying to get threater owners to make their theaters places I’d want to go to (i.e. enforce no talking/cell-phones, fewer advertisements before movies, and so on).
After reading the article, and others, it seems as though DRM isn’t about copyright (who has the right to reproduce an item) but rather the rights to play some piece of media across multiple machines.
Couldn’t copyright be protected simply by disabling the “copy” function on a computer (though you can keep “move” intact as it will delete from the original location – thus there in the end is only 1 copy of the copyrighted work)?
DRM seems to violate the original intent of copyright (I’m using the US definition here – don’t know much about other countries but I assume they are similar). If I buy a DRM protected DVD, use it one one player, then that player craps out – how do I go about getting it to play in my new replacement player? What use yet another username and password to verify that I’m allowed to use this DVD? That seems dumb. You’re only protecting from PLAYING not COPYING.
Why isn’t this issue thrown at the content providers. Just make it so you can not make a copy unless you are allowed. Forget the playback issue.
Please tell me that I’m wrong about DRM prohibiting playback on other devices. That just seems insanely restrictive and not truly in the spirit of protecting from unlawful reproduction. I really would like to be wrong about it – but it seems like I’m not.
“Disabling” the copy function wouldn’t work. First, that would require disabling every possibly mechanism whereby the act of copying could be implemented, which is not technically feasible.
More importantly, however, is that the act of copying something is NOT in and of itself an infringing act. At least in the US, there are a wide variety of legitimate “fair uses” that permit it. In fact, the case-law very clearly indicates that any use is fair use until decided otherwise by a court of law. That last part, of course, causes a lot of consternation among media companies and is the principle reason why the DMCA does not address “copying” works, but rather “accessing” works (there’s no case-law around copyright and access to works).
DRM simply circumvents the whole copyright issue by creating barriers to access a work (though doing so is typically claimed to be a copyright protection measure — if you can’t “access” a work, the logic goes, then you can’t infringe on the copyright that covers it).
DRM is really a misnomer. DRM prevents legal and illegal use of copyrighted works at the same time. It implements prior-restraint — limiting your use of a work a to very limited set of activities that represents a small set of those to which you are legally entitled. And, finally, DRM mechanisms do not expire when the copyright does (and to add insult to injury, “accessing” to work by circumventing the DRM is a felony even if the work is no longer under copyright since any tool/mechanism for doing so applies equally to protected works).
The term “Fair Use Circumvention Kit” is, therefore, in my opinion a much better term. Not only is the acronym more widely recognized, but it is far more descriptive of the technology and the effect of its use.
Copyright law exists to serve the public good. The goal is to encourage publication and eventual entry into the public domain. The incentive provided is a temporary monopoly on publication. There’s a fine balance between the desires of the publisher and what would best serve the public good.
The publisher gets a temporary monopoly, the public gets eventual entry into the public domain. The publisher gets control over public performance, the public gets substantial freedom over private use, and the right to resell (First Sale Doctrine). The publisher gets control over derivative works, the public gets limited use in derivative works as defined by Fair Use. Copyright is an agreement between publishers and the public, with give and take on both sides.
Technology has reduced the cost of violating that agreement, on both sides. Members of the public can easily copy copyrighted materials at trivial cost. Publishers can restrict otherwise legal use at trivial cost, through DRM. Both disrupt the balance.
This is not a new situation. The same issues existed from the start in the area of patents. Patents also define a balance between the rights of the patent holder and the rights of the public. With patents, the inventor gets protection, even against separate invention. The public gets publication of the patent, and eventual free use of the invention.
But the inventor has another option: contracts and trade secrets. Rather than publish his invention in a patent and accept the trade-offs between inventor and the public, he may keep his invention secret and enforce that secrecy through contracts. He can put any limit that he likes on the use of his invention, he has complete control. But that control is defined only by contracts signed in advance.
The medial cartel wants to have it both ways. They want to use DRM to enforce the part of the copyright trade-off that favors them, but violate the part that serves the public interest – which removes any justification for government enforcement. I think that the solution is to fork copyrights in the same way as the split between patents and trade secrets. DRM that respects the balance in copyright law – Fair Use and First Sale, among others – would be protected under copyright law. DRM that violated the copyright agreement would lose copyright protection, and be protected under contract law.
Of course, the media cartel doesn’t want to require customers to sign contracts that would spell out the limits on the customer. But that’s the only fair way to go beyond the restrictions delimited by copyright. Anyone who doesn’t agree to ALL of copyright shouldn’t be protected by it. We have the mechanism for this: Trade Secrets protected by contracts.
Copyright law exists to serve the public good. The goal is to encourage publication and eventual entry into the public domain. The incentive provided is a temporary monopoly on publication.
So we keep telling our selves. Does it work? Is it needed? Is it the best solution to the problem? Is it a problem?
Do anyone have ANY proof for their answers to those questions?
There’s plenty of evidence that copyright has fueled the growth of the business of publishing the written word, music, and movies. Take music as one example of technology and copyright in action.
For most of history, people who wanted to hear music made it themselves. Then, as now, most was not very good. It was a rare event to hear music played well, and even rarer to hear great music played well. Music was passed on from musician to musician by memory. Some great music was remembered, but much was lost.
The development of written music allowed great music to spread beyond the time and place of the composer. The printing press made publishing music affordable, and it flourished. The birth of American popular music traces to the time between the Civil War and WWI when copyright was finally enforced in the US. The styles may be dated, but everyone knows at least one piece of music from that era – ragtime, tin pan alley, barbershop quartet, early Broadway, jazz, and blues. Sheet music publishers thrived, and so did music.
Radio and the phonograph meant that not only could you hear more music, but you could hear it played by better musicians than anyone in your family or town. Music became an even greater part of our culture.
Was that growth due to technology, or to copyright? The answer is both. Copyright provided the reason to apply the technology, and paid for it’s development. Public domain music is still around, but look at the impact of copyrighted works versus public domain works. Bach may be in the public domain, but chances are that you’ve heard far more copyrighted recordings than pure public domain performances. Copyright does succeed in making works more widely available.
On the other hand, recent weakening of copyright, such as the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension and the DMCA, don’t show any such effect. Too long of a monopoly stifles the spread, as do too restrictive limits on use. You may question my calling these changes ‘weakening’ copyright, since they were proposed as ‘strengthening’ copyright. But they weakened the public benefit side of the copyright deal, and that makes the whole deal weaker. A good deal benefits all parties. Remove the balance, and you remove the public good which justifies the law in the first place.
You may have prooved that it WAS needed. My question was: IS it needed.
With DRM being forced down our throats I believe most of us will go underground. I suggest stocking up on non DRM
computer supplies while they last. Get a state of the art motherboard, A few SATA drives, A backup video card,
etc. And drop windows. Run Linux. I’m not doing this because I am a pirate. I am doing this because I’m against Big Brother. What is our duty? Do not vote for anyone who is Pro RIAA, MPAA etc. If the problem gets worse, don’t go to the movies, don’t buy any CDs or tapes, just don’t! On the other hand don’t share anything that is not public domain. Share stuff like home video, photos that you have taken, etc.. Let’s face it, lately the movies have not been up to par, and writers are not capable of original thought! It’s all remakes or sequels.
On the other hand don’t share anything that is not public domain. Share stuff like home video, photos that you have taken, etc..
If you’re not dealing with the RIAA/MPAA’s products, you don’t need to worry about DRM. The problem lies with those who want the RIAA/MPAA’s products, but not on the RIAA/MPAA’s terms.
When DRM covers all main stream TV/Films/Books/Magazines/Music/etc published any one choosing not to use DRM will be affected. Of course there will be alternatives but you will be missing out on a large chunk of contemporary culture.
just don’t!
I appreciate your position and suggestions. I’m also against Big Brother–in fact, I think 1984 should be required reading for everyone. (And of course, Run Linux is always good advice.)
But the problem with this kind of a response is that it’s almost a surrender and withdrawal. I think a better response is to make friends and acquaintances aware of the issues and to win them over to our side. And to write the occasional letter to our representatives. That’s advocacy.
Here’s an idea, a wild crazy idea: How about the content creators attempt to *compete* with the pirates? Instead of unleashing hoards of lawyers, make piracy less attractive than legal compliance. Anyone ever use Google video? Very fantastic. Picture the most commonly pirated shows available, with a full set of ads just like on tv, on Google video. A season of a tv show can run 8-9GB, and therefore would take weeks to nab with bittorent. Google style streaming video, with content creator paying ads would be instant, not require vast amounts of harddisk space, and would reach a far greater audience than even the tv version. Take my favorite tv show, Stargate Atlantis, for example. It’s the second most pirated show out there. It airs on the SciFi channel, which many people don’t get. I have a few friends who to want watch the show, but don’t get SciFi–they often end up pirating it. I know a few rabid fans who refuse to buy the DVDs, the usual excuse is “I already payed for them, I watched the ads when they aired on tv!” so let ’em watch a new set of ads. You also have to wait months for the DVDs to be released, encouraging tvrip pirates, who can get an episode up only hours after it airs. If the content providers got the streams up just as fast they would make more money and squelch the bulk of the piracy simultaneously.
Nor would this cut down on DVD sales. Why do people buy DVDs instead of relying on homemade vcr tapes? Quality. Commentaries and other DVD only content, and the big one, no ads. Most people willing to buy the DVDs now, would not be satisfied with the comparatively low-res streaming video and would still buy the disks.
Content creators need to realize that although they have the right to control their creations, they no longer have the *power* to do so.
I read a story about ABC putting some of their shows on iTunes for free but with ads, at some point.
The problem is that it’s still likely to be very restrictive. E.g.: no use of the service without iTunes, no sharing, no backing up, no skipping of ads, no using the service outside the US/etc.
Then again if they can make enough money out selling (i.e. leasing) their content they might not bother.
THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
Is there any evidence that file sharing of music hurts the artists?
Companies act like every downloaded file means the loss of a CD sale, but obviously that’s total nonsense. In my experience there are plenty of people who use file sharing just to discover new artists. When they’ve found an artist they like they’re happy to see them live, or purchase the CDs to get full albums at high quality.
I don’t think there can be any doubt that file sharing has increased greatly over the last few years, mainly thanks to the popularity of broadband and technologies like bittorrent. Yet the last time I looked CD sales had actually increased, at least in Britain and America.
If anything I’d expect DRM to hurt sales more, since people are less likely to purchase items that have restrictive and irritating limitations.