Ian Hickson on content providers and the reason for DRM

https://plus.google.com/app/basic/stream/z13qtnxhuojytbjbr04ci3cowrmtehsy324

by squarelegs • 13 years ago

91 24 13 years ago

plus.google.com

lucian1900• 13 years ago

Link to regular Google+, not the obnoxious tiny-text basic one: https://plus.google.com/107429617152575897589/posts/iPmatxBY...

jrajav• 13 years ago

I actually like it. It's not that readable to begin with, sure, but it's still more content-friendly than the full, overloaded Google+ UI. And unlike the full UI, you can zoom in and/or apply custom CSS (Try Safari's Reader), and it's also friendlier to low-bandwidth, screen readers, etc.

I dunno, mostly playing devil's advocate here, but I think Google+ has some issues as a competitor for traditional blogging that this low-tech version highlights.

pasbesoin3• 13 years ago

Too bad the respective URL's don't appear to share common substrings/identifiers.

mikecane3• 13 years ago

Culture is not created in silos. Culture is created by free exchange (which is not to be confused with "no things should be paid for"). DRM is just a speedbump on the road.

rayiner2• 13 years ago

Content is not just culture, it is also entertainment. Indeed, the kind of content that is protected by DRM is mostly entertainment, and not very much culture. There is no reason entertainment should be free nor is there really a positive social value in making it free. What is the positive externality to society from some kid being able to listen to the latest Nickelback album or play the latest Gears of War game for free? Because handwaving about "culture" aside, that's what we're really talking about here.

nitrogen• 13 years ago

The discussion about culture in the context of DRM is far from "handwaving." Culture and entertainment have always been intertwined; don't let high culture snobs tell you otherwise.

mikecane3• 13 years ago

>>>Indeed, the kind of content that is protected by DRM is mostly entertainment, and not very much culture.

Did you ever go see a Batman movie? A Superman movie? Iron Man? The Avengers movie? Those weren't considered "culture" as recently as the 1970s. Stop.

coldtea• 13 years ago

>Culture is not created in silos. Culture is created by free exchange

That was old style culture (mostly alive until pre 90s). Today's culture IS created in silos, by large corporations.

Today even the "grassroots", "viral" and "crowdsourced" upstarts embrace most of the ideas and styles of the silo world.

(One can substitute relative and in flux percentages --whereas I speak in absolutes for rhetorical effect--, but my main point I believe remains: today, more than ever, lots of "culture" is created in silos by large corporations).

mikecane3• 13 years ago

>>>Today's culture IS created in silos, by large corporations.

Wow. That will come to a shock to every writer out there who bet their life on the work they were doing unseen by anyone else.

_pmf_• 13 years ago

> The purpose of DRM is not to prevent copyright violations. > The purpose of DRM is to give content providers leverage against creators of playback devices.

The second is necessary because the first cannot be achieved directly.

yarrel• 13 years ago

The second is not an indirect means of achieving the first.

RickHull• 13 years ago

> B. Columbia make a movie. Netflix buys the rights to distribute this movie from Columbia

It's interesting that Columbia is treated as a plural subject while Netflix is singular. I'm pretty sure it's a Britishism to treat a firm as plural, but why doesn't Netflix get the same treatment? Earlier in the piece, Paramount gets the plural treatment.

edent• 13 years ago

At a guess, because the "ix" makes an "s" sound. So, in the writer's mind, it sounds like a plural i.e. "Netflicks".

kaoD• 13 years ago

That would make the opposite right.

  Columbia buys
  Netflicks buy

mkr-hn• 13 years ago

Some creators have business modeled themselves into a corner that requires control over the user's experience. That's unfortunate.

kefka2• 13 years ago

I know there have been gigabytes of text written about copyright and restriction technologies/laws surrounding them. I think I will mention another area which has not been discussed.

What is the US chief export? Machines and Electronic equipment(1). However, one thing glaringly absent from that list is digital media (Music, movies, programs). I would argue that digital media is one of the most important exports, and this requires copyright to enforce effectively.

I can easily imagine that every device we sell could be reduced to very effective 3d models (and circuit models, as well as code to use). In that end, everything we would export is the information how to reproduce. We RepRappers already freely trade and remix designs made by others. For us, a 50kB scad file is more than enough to reproduce the next cool object.

I can understand the US stance towards copyright, although I heartily disagree with them. Most of the industry requires a strong international copyright and protections because somebody else could copy their designs and make it without R&D cost.

(1) http://www.worldsrichestcountries.com/top_us_exports.html

bo1024• 13 years ago

I'm not sure how what you're saying relates to the article...?

kefka2• 13 years ago

I was mentioning something that was orthogonal to the article. DRM is mainly about protecting revenues. Now, what revenues? To make sure the end user pays for each and every use of a copyrighted X. DRM is only the means to enforce copyright.

Our country is a huge exporter of copyrighted goods. Now, much of those have physical objects on them as well. But still, I would argue our chief export IS the information how to build/do.

I sit in a very precarious world of current 3d printing. I'm old enough to have seen "dont coppy that floppy" by MC Hammer. I also saw the Napster empire build up and come a-crumbling down. We all saw what our DOJ is willing to do to shut down an evil piracy center (MegaUpload). We'll skip the fact that the FBI used the fact that they asked MU to save said pirated files, and then used that as the basis.

But what of 3d printing? That turns all of my consumer-ish 'whoops it's broken' to download/design failed part, print said part! The fun part is those gears can be patented and/or copyrighted. At the Midwest Reprap Festival, there was a person who was talking about a gear set made for a vacuum manufacturer that was known for having NO spare parts anywhere. Someone online, made a gear library for these non-standard gears for this vacuum.

I see the copyright argument and fight over 3d printing to make the Napster one look like a cakewalk. And I havent even discussed DefCad yet, with print your own Guns. That's a teergrube all in itself.

Guns being defined by the lower receiver, and not any pressurized or load bearing part. This is defined by the US govt.

naner• 13 years ago

We create a lot of digital goods so we should convince other countries that they are extremely valuable and must be made exclusive?

If I was a country who provided mostly goods and services I don't think I would be so easily convinced.

danielweber• 13 years ago

The bulk of new creation in the future is going to be in IP, not physical goods. Most other countries have their own IP that they want protected as well.

It's true that developing nations (read: China) often don't respect other countries' IP rights. The US didn't either when it was still young. But eventually countries get out of that catch-up phase and start actually inventing things of their own that they want protected.

ky3• 13 years ago

The purpose of DRM is not to prevent copyright violations. The purpose of DRM is to give content providers leverage against creators of playback devices.

The examples given paint a slightly different story.

The gist is that DRM is more a way to squeeze additional money out of those willing to pay for content than to keep content out of reach from those unwilling to pay.

Food for thought.

Ian Hickson on content providers and the reason for DRM

Related Stories