Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 23rd Jan 2006 19:20 UTC
Legal "DRM is a lie. When an agenda driven DRM infection peddler gets on a soapbox and blathers about how it is necessary to protect the BMW payments of a producer who leeches off the talented, rest assured, they are lying to you. DRM has absolutely nothing to do with protecting content, it is about protecting the wallets of major corporations. The funny thing is they aren't protecting it from you, they are protecting it from each other."
Thread beginning with comment 88944
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
sean batten
Member since:
2005-07-06

If I buy something, I should be able to share that something with a friend or family member

Sure, but normally when you share something with a friend if affects your ability to use it. For example, if I lend a friend my car I can use it while they've got it. When you make a copy of a cd you're producing another instance of the original and giving it away.

If you want to lend a friend a cd then give them the original and wait for them to give it back to you!

Reply Parent Score: 2

Deletomn Member since:
2005-07-06

JeffS: If I buy something, I should be able to share that something with a friend or family member. Just imagine if you bought a book, read it, then loaned it to your brother or someone else. You have a moral right to do so. Also, I should be able to loan my skill saw to my neighbor. There are many such examples.

Being a big lender of stuff myself, I can say that this like most "pro-piracy" stuff is a half-truth. sean batten mentioned how when you normally lend something it affects your ability to use it. Let me put it you this way... With my books on programming (which I frequently lend out) I can only lend any particular one to ONE friend at a time. That's right ONE. And while it's lent out I have NO access to it. However, if I lend my free software out, I can lend it to countless people at one time and I never lose access to it. Big difference.

Secondly... As I mentioned in a previous post, a lot of this has to do with intent. A lot of people when they pirate, intend to keep whatever it is, not to just try it out or use it for one day for a very specific one time purpose or what have you. Its generally there to stay. Meaning the word "lend" in the instance of piracy (like the term "try out") tends to mean "give" and "keep forever".

Reply Parent Score: 2

JeffS Member since:
2005-07-12

Deletomn: "Being a big lender of stuff myself, I can say that this like most "pro-piracy" stuff is a half-truth. sean batten mentioned how when you normally lend something it affects your ability to use it. Let me put it you this way... With my books on programming (which I frequently lend out) I can only lend any particular one to ONE friend at a time. That's right ONE. And while it's lent out I have NO access to it. However, if I lend my free software out, I can lend it to countless people at one time and I never lose access to it. Big difference."

Good point. However, when a copy of a song or movie is made, nothing has been taken from the original producer. They still have their copy that they can still sell for profit. Also, there is an initial cost of production (originally creating the "thing"), but there is near zero cost of re-production - they just keep making more and more copies.

So it works both ways. Yes with software or music I can produce many copies and give/loan them all to friends and still have my copy. Theoretically, this can take away from the potential purchases of said content. But on the other side of the coin, the original content producer has the tremdous benefit of zero cost re-production, and is able to reap much higher profits than is possible with high-cost re-production products (like a book or a skill saw).

And again I'll point to the fact that file sharing, by all studies and surveys and anectodal evidence, does not do any harm to the original content producers' business. In fact, just the opposite is true - the biggest file sharers/downloaders also tend to be the biggest producers. Finally, file sharing, or giving a copy to a neighbor, or producing a "mix" CD or tape (something that has been common place for decades) is the best free marketing a content producer could ever wish for. The companies can spend millions on marketing, but nothing beats the power of "word of mouth" or file sharing to get people to try stuff and eventually buy.

The fact that "Star Wars Episode III Revenge of the Sith" broke all box office records in spite of the fact that it was already downloadable on the internet (through someone obtaining a copy and sharing it) before theatrical release is proof of this. If you go with the big companies train of thought, you'd think that the file sharing would have hurt "Revenge of the Sith"'s box office. But it didn't. It helped it.

So, in short, content sharing (either with friends or on the internet) is not taking away from content producers - it's helping them.

Reply Parent Score: 1

h times nue equals e Member since:
2006-01-21

Both of you make IMHO good points.

First, copyright was intended to give the producers/artists/creators/... a monopoly limited in time to compensate for the costs of creating the content, but after that, the work should go into the public domain, to allow further usage (remixing, doing parodies or derivatives of it, .... )

I'm asking myself, if any DRM scheme actually has a kind of expiration date included. Please note, that I'm quite confident, that (if mankind doesn't destroy themselfes for another 100 years or so, and we don't get attacked by country-music hating martians either, etc. ) it will be quite trivial to hack around a then ancient and trivial copy protection mechanism, when for example a DRMed copy of a Led Zeppelin track goes into public domain state. But it kind of rips the very important tag "limited in time" from the "monopoly" sign attached to creative works, and that is (at least formally) not good. If I buy a book and it has expired the protective duration copyright grants, I can make as many derivative works (and as long as it is limited to the original work) copies from it as it pleases me. I can't see though, if this will hold for electronic media in the future too.

(I'm quite sure, that the copyright period will get extended up to a level where it is practically perpetual, so yeah, that's a pretty academic concern of mine, but I'll stick to my illusions as long as I can)

Edited 2006-01-24 22:49

Reply Parent Score: 1