Linked by Kroc on Thu 30th Aug 2007 13:03 UTC
Editorial I hear often that when something new appears that "competition is good". The primary reasons competition is seen as good, are: it drives down prices; it gives consumers more choice; it pushes technology forward, quicker. Competition is not good because: competition is why consumers have to choose between HD-DVD and BluRay; competition is why DRM exists; and more. In this article, each of the supposed benefits of competition will be looked at in more detail.
Thread beginning with comment 267089
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: DRM and competition?
by Almafeta on Thu 30th Aug 2007 18:25 UTC in reply to "RE: DRM and competition?"
Member since:

A starving customer will pay any price (on credit, of course).

And here is where the key fallacy lies. You will not starve just because the Big Mean Corporation won't let you have the Bon Jovi: Yet More Remixed Oldies album for free. If they were harming you, then you might have a point, but they are not.

People have no right to other people's things. If I walked into your house and helped myself to your money, I would become a criminal; the piracy of music, video, books, and software is no different.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: DRM and competition?
by butters on Thu 30th Aug 2007 18:45 in reply to "RE[2]: DRM and competition?"
butters Member since:

Oh, I completely realize that people will live without Bon Jovi. But they have to have it anyway. That's the problem with our consumer culture. We've been suckered into "needing" things we don't really need. We'd rather be in debt than not have all the shiny stuff we see on TV.

No, I wouldn't want you coming into my house and stealing my money. But someone I knew a bit better asked nicely, I might lend them some money. Digital content is weird because we can make copies at little or no cost. If I could turn my $20 bill into as many $20 bills as I like, then I would certainly lend you money. You can hold me to that, OK?

As I've said many times before, digital media is different than anything we've bought and sold before. How it is monetized will be one of defining issues of our time. The ability to make infinite copies is a unique property. It flies in the face of supply and demand. It's a new kind of entity that's neither a good nor a service.

Comparisons to stealing cars or or even stealing network bandwidth are flawed. These are scarce commodities. Digital media is not. So there is a difference.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: DRM and competition?
by sbergman27 on Thu 30th Aug 2007 19:33 in reply to "RE[3]: DRM and competition?"
sbergman27 Member since:

Comparisons to stealing cars or or even stealing network bandwidth are flawed. These are scarce commodities. Digital media is not. So there is a difference.

Agreed. And yet intellectual property is still property, as well it should be (despite Stallman's well meaning hand waving about that term). On the supply side it is, anyway. Someone worked hard, spent sleepless nights, etc., to come up with the idea and develop it into a reality. Or to compose and record it. Whatever.

We have a newish beast here. But we persist in trying to define it as a car, a horse, or as the air we breathe. When it is, in fact, all three, and none of the above.

It looks like one thing to the producer. Another to the distributor. And quite another to the consumer.

It's the sort of thing that the original Twilight Zone could have done some interesting things with, had the writers been shown a glimpse of this future.

Reply Parent Score: 4