Priligy online now, save money

SEP 29

Recent Comment

"Just about every aspect of Walmart is bad for the environment, that's ..."

View all Comments

DRM is Bad for You AND for the Planet

I am primarily an ecogeek, but I can't deny that I'm also just a geek. And so I, of course, love the open source, free software and http://robert-alonso-photos.com/cialis-sales-online creative commons movements. Without those powerful forces EcoGeek would absolutely have never existed.

So, yeah, I hate digital rights management. I believe that it's contrary to the spirit of creation and should not exist. But I don't get to talk about it here, because its all geek and no eco.

Or so I thought! When recently reading about Wal-Mart's epic DRM fail at Read Write Web, I realized that DRM is indeed very bad for the environment. So bad, that it could possibly destroy one of the great environmental benefits of technology... digitization.

First, I should point out a less substantial environmental problem with DRM. IT EATS POWER! Devices using DRM have been shown to use up to 25% more power than when they're playing non-managed media...and that's not even counting all the best buy generic levitra online resources consumed by the manger's server farms that keep track of it all.

But, comparatively, that's a tiny problem. The real problem here is that the easiest way to get an MP3 that isn't crippled by some kind of DRM is still to buy the physical CD. What's worse, when DRM systems go offline (as they are at Wal-Mart) people are going to be extremely hesitant to go digital again. Basically, Wal-Mart's servers going offline is like saying "Oh, that song you bought, well, you didn't actually own it because it wasn't really real...sorry."

Wal-Mart's suggestion? Burn it to a CD, that way you'll have it even if after we take your official ownership away. BURN IT TO A CD! I thought the whole point was that we weren't using those clunky petro-disks anymore!

What I'm afraid of is that DRM will effectively remove ownership from non-physical media. Either we will rent the right to access everything for a certain monthly price (already working well for Microsoft) or rent out our eyeballs for the right to watch it (working just fine at Hulu.com.)

But if we want to actually own a song or movie or television show, we will need to buy the real-life, made-of-petroleum, shipped-across-the-world, physical disk. Either that, or we'll have to break the law...our choice. And any way you look at it, when physical media consume up to ten times more resources than non-physical media, DRM isn't just bad for consumers, it's bad for the planet.

Hits: 21264
Comments (41)Add Comment
0
DRM is needed
written by Andrew, September 29, 2008
I believe that we need a way to protect artists and allow them to earn a living. Some people are hooked on getting their music and films for free, which is not sustainable. Couple that we the viagra next day delivery obvious greed of the record companies who have stolen from artists for years and some for of portection becomes essential.

Not that any form of portect is unbreakable, I'd suggest a whole new model is needed. The solution is remarkably simple when you think about it, you need an advertising funded model.

Andy
0
DRM is not needed
written by Ken Roberts, September 29, 2008
Rather than protecting the artist, DRM actually encourages people to go out and pirate a copy of the music or software in question. Pirates can break any form of DRM within days of a release, and usually even *before* the official release. The only real reason one has for purchasing a piece of music or video game rather than pirating it is to do the right thing. It is tough to do the right thing in the face of huge economic incentive to do otherwise, so when you handicap the legal software and the www.chopperssportsgrill.com illegal software remains fully functional... it just isn't worth it anymore for most people.

Take the game Spore for instance. Many people were planning on purchasing it, but decided instead to pirate it after the seyonic.com draconian DRM was made public. Now it is the most pirated game in history. Ridiculous. How is that protecting the artist?

Have you ever been to a city with a vibrant street music scene? Everyone listens to the music for free, and those that really enjoy it give a voluntary donation. Music has existed in that form for thousands of years, and the modern equivalent has made bands such as Radio Head very wealthy. Provide the downloads for free, and fund your work with donations, concert tickets, and web advertisement.
0
UK seems to be going DRM-free
written by Adam, September 29, 2008
Interestingly, the whole CD v MP3 green debate isn't as simple as you'd think:

http://www.forumforthefuture.org/files/DigitaleuropeMusiccasestudy.pdf

Happily enough, the UK finally seems to be offering alternatives to DRM -- I've recently ditched iTunes here in favour of 7Digital:

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/digitalmusic/0,39029432,49298947,00.htm
0
Off Subject…
written by Le Mouton Vert, September 29, 2008
Would be interesting to know about the environnemental impact of free (as in FSF) software compared to proprietary ones.

Perhaps did I miss the post…
0
...
written by MarkR, September 29, 2008
Hank,

Better yet, do what I do, DON'T BUY/RENT DIGITAL MEDIA! Thank of all the money you will save. Digital media, like texting is just another ponzi scheme to separate you from your money. Its dirt cheep to produce and cheap viagra pills sell, and about 95% profit.
0
As a musician...
written by Sash, September 29, 2008
I don't like DRM at all. Many artists use creative commons licenses and do well for themselves. Several examples include Radiohead's latest album, Jonathan Coulton and the entire wizard rock community. I believe that you get more exposure that way and therefore, more plays, purchases and donations.
0
DRM is a waste
written by Clinch, September 29, 2008
If someone wants to get a music file illegally, they will most likely be able to, (and one that has no trace of DRM), so in the end, it has no effect on the people it's trying to stop (i.e. pirates) causes problems for people who are paying for it (i.e. us), and increases cost for the people running the DRM (e.g. Wal-Mart).
0
Please buy digital media!
written by Hamumu, September 29, 2008
Digital media is not a ponzi scheme. It costs about 95% as much to make as physical media. You think the only for you buy viagra online canadian phamacy major cost of a CD is the production and materials? It's almost entirely paying the people who made it (and hangers-on who didn't!).

I make my living selling digital media (and occasionally CDs to those who order them). I don't use DRM, so you should like me! Come buy my dumb games at http://hamumu.com !

But it takes me say a year to make a game (some take many years, others a few months). So to make a decent living, say I want $30,000 return (that's horrifically small for a programmer, let alone someone who's also doing the art, sound, design, marketing, and all other aspects as well). If I charge $20 per game, I need to sell 1500 copies before that happens (nevermind costs, which exist even digital - hosting for $90/mo, domain names for a few pennies, 3% for credit card costs. and any marketing I actually bother to do). So, no, it's not 95% profit, and it's not dirt cheap to produce in any sense. It's incredibly expensive to produce. A year of my life! And I need to make enough money to support that year, or I will be too busy working at McDonald's to have time to produce art. That is the fundamental reason why we need to pay for art. If you want to artists to create, you have to make it possible for them to do so.

The rules would change if I somehow had the eye of the world and people were clamoring to get my games. Then I could charge $1 a copy, since 30,000 copies would be out the door in no time. But as a total unknown out there in the big wide world, I don't sell that much!

Content developers need to make a living just as much as anyone else. If you like the content, buy it. If you don't, skip it - don't pirate it. Just because you get it in digital form doesn't make it any different than any other product. If you buy a book, virtually none of the price you pay is going to fund the printing and visit our site sale levitra materials. It's all 'digital' (paying the publisher, marketers, author, editor). CDs are the buy viagra in new york same (but even cheaper to create!). Don't buy this absolute nonsense about digital being 'dirt cheap to produce'. A minute portion of the expenses are the manufacturing costs. It's almost all the same costs whether digital or physical.

Heck, even at my level, I order CDs 100 at a time for my products, because it takes me years to sell that many (most people buy downloads). Those CDs cost me around $1.50 each, case and all. That's ordering 100 at a time! When you raise the numbers to ordering 50,000 at a time, it's pennies each. Think about that in terms of buying a PS3 game. You pay $60, the CD/book/case cost them $0.10 to make. Talk about dirt cheap to produce! Downloading the game would probably cost them about the same money in bandwidth!

So yes, I hate DRM, but I love digital products. Buy mine, they're DRM-free. And I'm saving up for solar panels, so sometime next year, they'll even be made out of green bits! Provided you buy my games so I make the money to buy those panels...
0
run away from the reality
written by Jay Tee, September 29, 2008
Another finely crafted rationalization of that thing we used to call stealing.
Great work, for an amoral guy who is unwilling to pay for what isn't his.
0
Amazon.com
written by bbm, September 29, 2008
Has DRM-free music.
0
...
written by Andrew Leinonen, September 29, 2008
To the same extent as anyone on the other side of the issue, you're only seeing what you want to see Jay Tee.

There are two facts that have been evidenced:

1) DRM is not effective at preventing piracy, and merely alienates people who are actually willing to buy things legitimately (or were, anyway, before companies began to indiscriminately treat their customers as thieves).

2) Consumers are readily willing to pay for music and software, as long as they are given an appropriate venue to do so that doesn't insult their intelligence or ethics (as DRM does). Witness the success of Radiohead's pay-what-you-can album, aralie.com, and others.

As much as big media talks about how much piracy as ravaged the music industry, it's never been a better time to be an independent musician. Of course the viagra or cialis record companies are in pain - technology and society has finally come up with a way to bypass their monopoly. If a few multi-billion dollar companies need to change their ways or die, I won't shed any tears. I'll give my money straight to the artist, thanks.
0
...
written by MarkR, September 29, 2008
Hamumu,

My comment wasn't directed towards what I would consider the mom-pop digital shop. I'm talking about Mainstream media. Where they sell hundreds of millions of copies of say crap like Ne-Yo's Closer. And because of the sheer volume of selling 100 million copies 1 song for even a $1.50 reduces the cost to produce it to mere pennies. I just have a problem buying something that is 95% profit. So good luck Hamumu, but as for me and my Benjamin's, Jackson's, Lincoln's and Washington's we prefer to be spent on things that will get me away from techno - crap. when I'm not at work I prefer things such as Hunting, Fishing, Hiking and Biking. I got over video games when I got a real job. A GPS is about the only digital I take with me when I take a weekend to get real with the outdoors. If I need music I'll bring the guitar.
0
Just to be clear
written by Hank, September 29, 2008
I make a significant portion of my income selling my music. I encourage people to share my music and have only ever found that it encourages goodwill and strengthens the bottom line.

Musicians who don't see that effect are almost invariably either chained by record labels or far to rich for their own good.

I will say, however, that physical media has remained important for my sales...something that I wish I could avoid. But people truly don't see it as ownership until they can feel it. And these are young people...indicating that it's innate, not an artifact of a dying system.
0
I never thought about that
written by GreenJoyment, September 29, 2008
Since working in a radio station on a college campus, I have really disliked the RIAA's whole approach to controlling the www.unifem.it music. First it was how the handled the whole Napster thing. Do you realize that the RIAA could own the entire online music distribution system if, instead of suing Napster, they simply bought Napster? It would have been less expensive, and they would have owned a user base of 1million users from day 1, instead of pissing off tens of millions of people.

Fascinating that DRM devices take more power, and funny that Wal-Mart would recommend to burn to CD's when they're working so hard to show themselves as being a "green" company.

What would your suggestion be for how the music industry (RIAA et. al.) can continue to profit from music (since they're not going away), while also making things open?

Jonathan
www.GreenJoyment.com
0
I am Digg
written by Digg, September 30, 2008
You were dugged!
0
Uhhhh... Yeah, the artists are there to
written by Michael, September 30, 2008
Better yet, do what I do, DON'T BUY/RENT DIGITAL MEDIA! Thank of all the money you will save. Digital media, like texting is just another ponzi scheme to separate you from your money. Its dirt cheep to produce and sell, and about 95% profit.


Good facts. You fail at the internet.

This shit - no matter what presentation medium - costs money.
0
To the DRM supporters...
written by Ben, September 30, 2008
DRM doesn't affect anyone who pirates stuff... It can only affect legit users.

For example, I brought spore... At some point I'm going to have to go through the saga of ringing up EA customer support to get an extra install. However, someone who just downloaded it from the net just has to copy over a cracked EXE and are home free...

Unfortunately for music if a DRM server goes down, you can't just copy over a crack to get your music back, although it was never really your music cause you have to ask everytime you want to listen to it.

Pirates just bypass DRM, hell, a lot of legit owners probably crack their stuff so they don't have to worry about the DRM.

All it does is make people want to pirate...
0
Consumers Rarely Own Intellectual Proper
written by a guest, September 30, 2008
When you buy a music CD you don't own the music. You own a license to listen to the music for person use. The same is true of software and other media.

The only real solution to prevent piracy is taking away your privacy so they can *see* you pirating intellectual property. I think it's necessary to make efforts to stop piracy. It's unfortunate that those efforts often hurt consumers, but it is pirates that make those efforts necessary (and in my experience, the majority of consumers are OK with piracy so they have no right to complain). It's a problem that you've brought on yourselves.

Personally, I prefer to buy the CD anyway. You get the whole package with the art, etc., and the intellectual property is on a static medium in a protective case, which makes it less likely that you're going to accidentally delete it or something.
0
StarDock
written by anonylisk, September 30, 2008
Also doesn't use DRM on their games, and they make some pretty good games. Their theory is ridiculously simple and common sense (paraphrased): DRM drives away legit customers and no prescription tramadol delivered doesn't deter pirates. The people who pirate our software probably weren't going to pay for it in the first place, and we're not going to change that with DRM. Instead of trying to convert pirates into paying customers, we should spend more time on making sure our games are a quality worth paying for.
0
It _is_ easy to get DRM free music
written by jm, September 30, 2008
There are plenty of places on the Internet to get quality DRM-free music: big players like http://www.amazon.com and smaller players like http://www.lala.com have huge selections from all the major labels and most of the indie labels.
0
I do NOT buy licenses
written by David Klassen, September 30, 2008
I don't care what the buy levitra no prescription required RIAA, MPAA, or any four-letter organization believes. I do not buy a license to listen to music or watch a movie. I purchase, and own, a copy of it. Just as with books. My copy is (well, ought to be) mine to do with as I wish so long as I do not distribute further copies. That means I have a right to use it how I see fit, move it as I see fit, and even sell it as I see fit. DRM takes away most, if not all, these rights.

As for the argument of CD's or music files being how folks make a living, well, times change. Opium selling used to be a way folks made a legal living. Not so long ago, selling physical copies of ones music was merely the side business of getting folks to come and pay for the live show---concerts were the primary source of income. It seems that we're just moving back to that business model.
0
...
written by Ken Roberts, September 30, 2008
To a_quest, it is exactly that kind of disdain for the customer that drives people to piracy in the first place. The music (and other) industries no longer have the power to dictate terms to consumers in the digital age. They'll have to either make products that people are willing to buy, or go out of business. DRM is not a profitable business model, and we will see it disappear soon enough.
0
DRM is oh so effective.
written by Traverse Davies, September 30, 2008
My fiance buys most of her music from iTunes. She does so because she believes it is just easier than the pirate bay... and a lot of what she listens to is fairly rare so there tend not be a lot of torrents for it.
We bought a new car recently, it has a usb port and can play MP3's. It cannot play apples proprietary audio DRM riddled format. This means that while my fiance gets the music easier, that labour is completely canceled out by the time and energy I have to spend breaking the DRM on the literally thousands of songs she has purchased... just so we can listen to them in the car.
0
Very disappointing comments...
written by Hank, September 30, 2008
Come on - a hot topic comes up and you all act like you're a bunch on angst-ridden teenagers. This is insane - regardless of your beliefs you have to see that:

-theft of any kind is wrong (did you purchase it? no, then why do you feel entitled to enjoy it?)

-DRM may fail on music and movies, but will NEVER completely go away (especially on software, though it will hopefully become less intrusive)

-regardless of if you think you own something, the reality is you're legally bound to the license

-most software DRM is not about thwarting determined pirates, it's about keeping the cialis on line pricing in canada average user legit

-thinking that because something is digital it costs next to nothing to create is merely justification for being a thief and lifeinabundance.org is not based on any facts whatsoever


And before I forget:

@MarkR, your a real piece of work - you may have a "real-job", but it sounds like Hamumu is self-employed, so he's go you beat.
0
Im Not A Thief (Well Only Sometimes)
written by Me, September 30, 2008
This whole piracy is theft thing annoys me. For it to be theft (legally and morally)a victim has to lose something, if I pirate a movie I would never buy or see at the theatre or even watch on TV (Which I have a few times) nobody has lost anything. How can it be theft if they have lost nothing? If I would have payed for the movie (or song or game or other software) then it would be theft (of a sale, not the thing I downloaded) however being a student I couldnt pay for it even if I wanted to. Even if I sell that pirated copy its not theft, its counterfeiting.
0
@Traverse Davies
written by Tyler, September 30, 2008
Who uses TPB for music?

Anyway, Hulu.com is free.
0
@ME
written by Hank, September 30, 2008
I'm guessing you're not a law school student then. In many countries both of the situations you describe (taking something you don't own, selling something you don't own - regardless of format) are not legal.

I'm also betting that when you get into the real world and you're working your a$$ off to support your family, you'll feel differently.
0
Possibly
written by Me, September 30, 2008
My understanding is that the legal dictionary in my country at least says that someone must lose property for it to be classified as theft, however I am not a law student so I could be wrong.
Also As a student in the 3D field I have thought about this alot as one day it might be my work being pirated. I can understand and support an artists wish to be payed but I think that as long as you are providing a quality product and reasonable price the majority of people who can afford it will pay and I cannot hate someone for wanting to view my work.
This is somewhat off topic thou.
I don't think DRM will force many people to use CD's more. I don't personally know anyone who even uses them for anything any more, I haven't used CD's in over a year and still have a stack of blank CD's will never use. If someone offered me a free CD I probably wouldn't even take it. The hassle of burning it to hard drive so I can use it and making sure it is a high quality rip is less that the hassle of downloading it. And I would still have a useless CD to store or throw away.
0
Welcome back to reality
written by Aleksandr, September 30, 2008
run away from the reality
written by Jay Tee , September 29, 2008
Another finely crafted rationalization of that thing we used to call stealing.
Great work, for an amoral guy who is unwilling to pay for what isn't his.


When you download something, you get a copy of the product, not the product per sé. Would I be stealing your car if I managed to grab a perfect copy out of it, not even touching it? I help you: no.
0
...
written by Amby, October 01, 2008
piracy != theft

Piracy might be illegal to those who believe the law is always right. To me the law is wrong on this subject. The sole reason for free licenses like Creative Commons, GPL and such is the copyright law is too strict. These licenses are in effect piracy, although legal. The record labels and lobbyist groups should (and in my view do) fear these different free licenses more than what is traditionally seen as piracy. (Their silence regarding free licenses is even more telling than their noise about "piracy".)

All this DRM crap is meant to take the rights from the artists and give them to the distributors. Nothing to do with piracy, although what the riaas and drug impotence levitra ifpis of the world themselves do is nothing but stealing from the artists. Of course what they do isn't really "stealing", more than it is defrauding their rights. The artists willingfully give up theirs in order to take part in this scam of a lottery called record sales. And the copyright law supports and protects that scam.

The present copyright law is like a law that'd give the mob the right to collect protection money.

Talk about protection money, stealing and stuff. The Riaas of the world somehow have the right to bill royalties for my music even if I'm not their slave. They don't even have to pay me my share. The law is broken.
0
One final attempt, hopefully people will
written by Hank, October 01, 2008
@Me: 3D art is an excellent example, having a guy lift your art for a small game is no different than EA lifting your art for a game - they're taking your work. If you're cool with it that's fine, but not everyone is.

@Amby: the huge difference in your argument is this; using a GPL'ed product is NOT theft as the owner licensed the product as GPL, treating a tightly licensed product as GPL/open source IS theft because it wasn't intended and licensed as such.

If you really put so little value on a product that you flat out refuse to pay for it, why use it? Why not; make something better, use a free alternative, or go without it. I'm guessing it's because the product DOES have value to you, and you're cheaping out.

Regarding DRM and distributors; I completely agree when we're talking music/movies/games, but software DRM is often applied by the manufacturer, not the publishers.

As for GPL taking over the world - the open source movement has been around for a LONG time, and predates many of today's internet-based software companies. Clearly there is a place for both open source and tightly licensed software, and neither is going to take over (I imagine free music is similar).

@Wes: come on, you can do better than that. :P
0
Whoops; wrong title
written by Hank, October 01, 2008
Sorry, the "One final.." title was written before I realized Amby and I were talking about two different thing (software -vs- music/movies).

My apologies, consider it updated to:

"Continuing the just try! viagra online sales conversation"
0
all things copyright
written by Amby, October 02, 2008
the huge difference in your argument is this; using a GPL'ed product is NOT theft as the owner licensed the product as GPL, treating a tightly licensed product as GPL/open source IS theft because it wasn't intended and licensed as such.


That's about as wrong as it can get. Sorry about that, but the thing is the laws don't recognice piracy or license violations as theft. They are called "infringements", not "theft". You can infringe on GPL and other free licenses too which by the way are also "copyrighted", and I have yet to see those violations referred to as "theft". License and copyright violations are just that. There is no removal of goods happening there.

And the copyright law is too strict, that's why CC and GPL were created in the first place. But I don't see the recording industry embracing free licenses or supporting artists wanting to embrace them. That's why many artists have to decide whether to release their music under free licenses or sign a restrictive contract that renders all their own rights moot with the promise of only possible revenues.

None of the laws I know refer to, or sentence piracy the same as theft. In the view of the law an act of piracy is deemed a serious legal matter compared to most copyright infringement.

Remember I am critizising the laws being broken. I'm not trying to advocate doing the wrong thing. I just happen to believe non-profit copying does no harm to the copyright owners. It's a totally different ballgame when we start talking about commercial piracy, that is with counterfeits. (Although I'd personally be more lenient in that case too, as long as the moral rights of the original author are met.)

The punishments for copyright piracy in many jurisdictions are actually even harsher than for rape, child abuse or murder. That makes one wonder why.

If you really put so little value on a product that you flat out refuse to pay for it, why use it? Why not; make something better, use a free alternative, or go without it. I'm guessing it's because the product DOES have value to you, and you're cheaping out.


But I do use the free alternative. That's my case. I am, if you don't mind, cheaping out. I am also spreading the word. That means I'm leading people (potential customers) to other markets. I'm in effect, "stealing", or should I say, pirating, the industries revenues. Yes, I'm doing it legally and that's what must scare them.

DRM schemes will prevent me from doing so. If DRM were to become an accepted and tramadol for sale exclusively used technique all-round, all my attempts to use, distribute or create content whether it be music, books or software under free licenses would be taken away. DRM discriminates those of us who want to share our stuff freely. It also doesn't differentiate between legit public domain and pirated material. Everything should be DRM'd for DRM schemes to work, at all. As long as there's this thing called public domain, it doesn't. That's the reason there's an ongoing push to further lengthen the we like it canada generic viagra copyright protection period. Having observed the copyright industry I think they would prefer that be indefinitely.

the open source movement has been around for a LONG time


That would be the Free Software movement. The Open Source Initiative is relatively new, founded in 1998. There are certain philosophical differences too.

It can also be argued that non-profit copying is not all that harmful as the industry lets us believe. Prof. Lawrence Lessig for instance has suggested that there is also benefit in non-profit copying, and harm from preventing, through statutory, contractual and technical measures, non-profit copying from taking place. (The same argument applies even for for-profit copying.) There have been many estimations done of these costs and benefits, who suggest pretty much everyone wins with non-profit copying.
0
...
written by Hank, October 02, 2008
Regardless of the legal-terms infringement is a type of theft. If a waiter lifts your credit card number at a restaurant, would you distinguish between theft (as in "stole") and infringement depending on whether he used it yet? Remember there's no removal of goods... yet.

Yes I know GPL works are copyrighted, because ALL creations are automatically copyrighted or trademarked (at least in the states), by merely typing this post it's copyrighted by me.

Just to be clear I'm assuming you're talking about pirating products, as in ripping/cracking, then posting them to the net or handing out to your friends. Not making a personal copy, which no one other than you can access (I think these are essential in case of media failure, or for convenience).

Based on that assumption there's no way to distinguish between commercial and non-commercial piracy. You can try and rationalize it - however someone, somewhere is using the pirated products to improve their lot. Whether that someone is reselling ripped products, posting them on sites like RapidShare (which make money on accounts), or posting them on torrent or their own sites (which drives ad revenue) - someone is still making money somewhere.


To talk a bit about my views on laws; I think the patent laws, especially in the states, are completely screwed. However I think there's a huge difference between those and the licensing we're talking about, which really makes it hard for me to agree in any way with the piracy mentality:

A patent prevents you from making a similar device/mechanism without getting into legal gray area. With the rather broad details patents often have, this can restrict competition - at times severely.

With copyright if you really feel the license is too restrictive and/or can't justify the cost of the product, then make your own. If you (or someone like minded) can't create your own, presumably better, version for less than the cost of the original product, then clearly there's value in the original product. In which case buy it.


Re cheaping out; that's in reference to using pirated versions, instead of buying the canadian healthcare pharmacy original or finding an alternative.

I'm leading people (potential customers) to other markets. I'm in effect, "stealing", or should I say, pirating, the industries revenues.


I'm really not following why you keep calling this "stealing" (at least in the legal sense) or in your previous post calling GPL "theft". Providing customers options is the point in offering products (along with making money), and regarding open source / free software / whatever, if the creator provides that type of license, cool. If not, it shouldn't be up to the individual user to decide - that's the difference.

DRM schemes will prevent me from doing so. If DRM were to become an accepted and exclusively used technique all-round, all my attempts to use, distribute or create content whether it be music, books or software under free licenses would be taken away.


I think you're getting really worked up over nothing - this is NEVER going to happen. I know there are a lot of alarmists out there saying it will, but really this is far fetched at best.
0
part 2 (think post was too big)
written by Hank, October 02, 2008
That would be the Free Software movement. The Open Source Initiative is relatively new, founded in 1998. There are certain philosophical differences too.


The average user doesn't know or care about the differences. Ask the average user (say a nearly computer-illiterate neighbor) what type of licenses Open Office, Linux, or MySQL use, and how they differ from others. The answer is "they are free", even when that's not entirely the case.


What I really want to know is; do you pirate software and music/movies? If you so; do you really think you're sticking it to the execs of those industries?

Because you're not. The execs of many of these industries are well insulated from losses in revenue. The first people to get hit are people like you and order usa viagra online me. First cut wages, then cut positions. Regarding music I'm sure the artists are squeezed and the cost of goods increased. So who really gets hurt - the little guys. How is this helping the "cause"?


Remember I am critizising the laws being broken.


Pretend you're an artist, who sells prints of your work online. This is your job - it's how you feed and support your family. Regardless of how you feel about the laws, how would you feel if a much larger and better known site offered your prints free? How do you feel as your sales are siphoned off to the free site? Remember these are not competing artworks that happen to be free, they're YOUR works.

I don't mean any offense by this, but it's hypocritical to suddenly turn to the laws you're railing against, simply because it would benefit you. Yet I can't imagine you would want to see your family suffer, or all your hard work thrown away by giving up and getting a job.

The frustration is that these kind of conversations always end up focusing on the music and movie giants, but these laws (and DRM) often protect much smaller companies and individuals too.
0
Patents are somewhat equally bad but not
written by Amby, October 02, 2008
providing customers options is the point in offering products (along with making money), and regarding open source / free software / whatever, if the creator provides that type of license, cool. If not, it shouldn't be up to the individual user to decide - that's the difference.


The difference is I am in effect taking away the industries revenues by doing so, not just maybe causing "something" to happen to their potential revenues, as is the case in piracy. It isn't carved in stone you know, that someone, after downloading an album from TPB doesn't start liking it and after that, still not buy it. It is also a strong possibility, I'd even say probability, that a purchase happens, when someone really likes something she hears, whether it's originally pirated or not. In my case, I'm advocating different markets to those who cry piracy. What I do is knowingly taking away their profits.

I don't see piracy harming the industries profit margins. It just can not be proven that lost record sales are due piracy and perhaps not because bad music or competing media formats like movies, games and such. And talking about movies, the movie industries revenues have been steadily rising, despite piracy, or perhaps because of it. And the profit growth as far I have observed it, has been quite healthy. I've yet to see those yearly losses of 7 billion because of piracy they used to claim. I mean, if I've calculated it right, they should have been bankrupt years ago if it were that bad.

I think you're getting really worked up over nothing - this is NEVER going to happen. I know there are a lot of alarmists out there saying it will, but really this is far fetched at best.

Well, if you don't mind telling me, do you know any mobile phones that are sold today, that do not have DRM? I've tried a couple of them, and they do seem to cripple files sent between them. I had a SonyEricsson T300 a while back and cheap cialis order online I sent a simple midi file to my brothers Nokia (don't remember the model anymore), but when I later bought a Siemens CX75, we couldn't transfer that one song from the Nokia to the Siemens. Because of DRM. The file was not a restricted file, but it seems that at some stage it got "protected" by DRM. In mobile phones, all-around DRM is already a reality. I'm hoping OpenMoko, Android and other Linux-based smartphone OS's will fix that, but I fear it will be too late. I just want to share my stuff freely, but if it gets flagged as "protected" at any stage, it is no longer mine to share. Think about that. It is no longer only about computers.

The average user doesn't know or care about the differences.

Whether or not, it doesn't hurt to remind people there are differences, because for most people it is important to know the philosophy and ethics behind something that's been sold to them. Take for instance this blog. It's here to give us insight on products and perhaps a different viewpoint on life itself concerning "green living" and whatnot. We might get enlightened by stories about alternative energy and ecological benefits of using certain kinds of technology, but there's always the ethical and philosophical aspect. Should I support a corporation that uses child labour, how about a firm that sues its competitors out of existence and/or buy them out after using underhanded monopoly tactics? Should I perhaps support an industry that chooses to sue their customers and cripple their offerings rather than provide a better sales mechanism suited for the Internet era?

What I really want to know is; do you pirate software and music/movies?

You might never get to know that, but it wouldn't even matter, because whether I infringed or not, if the sales go down, the piracy would always get the blame. Even if everyone just started to spread and share free music, piracy would be blamed if the sales went down. And that's the case for more DRM and further reducing artists pay.

You might call me an alarmist, but I reckon I'm the one who'll be saying "I told you so."

Pretend you're an artist, who sells prints of your work online.

You are talking about stock photography? It would be hard to make such thing work in the todays networked world. I'd be more inclined to showcase paintings and female cialis pills sell the real stuff via mail/UPS. Of course one could sell full A3 prints of the stuff for poster material or give it away freely. I wouldn't mind if someone put my stuff up for show on other sites as long as my name was mentioned. The thing is I wouldn't even try cashing in on one picture more than once, unless someone wanted to offer money for another copy. One picture would in my book usually mean one sale. Then I'd have to create new pictures to support my family. (Incentive.) That's how commerce should normally work. It's like the case with money, you can't copy it creating more cash and not cause an inflation too.

I don't mean any offense by this, but it's hypocritical to suddenly turn to the laws you're railing against, simply because it would benefit you. Yet I can't imagine you would want to see your family suffer, or all your hard work thrown away by giving up and getting a job.

The thing is, I'd be perfectly comfortable with a copyright lasting for say 10 years, possibly renewable once and allowing non-profit copying, or even small scale for-profit copying, providing the authors moral rights are respected, even after the work falls into public domain. I personally would have absolutely no need for DRM. If I wanted to encrypt something for privacy I already have other tools for that.

And you forget that many artists do have a second job, musicians are not always fairly provided by their record companies, and those who make income from music mostly do so because of touring, not from record sales. I'm not familiar with the games industry, but I have learned that there are some that have pissed off their userbase with draconian DRM and those who have listened to theirs and taken it off. As for what goes to books and pictures, well, many publishers have started releasing free ebooks aside the printed ones and that seems to have gone pretty well. Pictures... well, look at Flickr, stock photography is really not very profitable (or is fast losing appeal) considering the sheer amount of free pictures online.

For industries that depend on copyrights, DRM might feel the only way to protect their revenues. But by lobbying more and stricter laws and purchase viagra no prescription required implementing ever more intrusive DRM techniques they are creating an environment that is increasingly hostile to free content, free information and free culture. And again, yes, I do sound like an alarmist, but do you personally think the implementations for DRM have increased or decreased these last years?

DVD has it, HD-DVD, Blueray has it, HDTV has it, Set-Top digi-tv boxes have it, home theaters have it, Computers (TCM) have it, Operating systems have it (Apple, Microsoft), media players have it (Zune, iPod, Creative), mobile phones have it... The list goes on.. Some of these devices and applications even convert non-DRM'd media into DRM'd one "just in case" without my permission (Zune, mobile phones, Vista, WMP, etc). Am I being alarmist? No! All this is reality and happening now, under our eyes, and we don't notice?

these laws (and DRM) often protect much smaller companies and individuals too

I fail to see how DRM protects anything, but yes, in a degree I agree that laws are there to protect companies and individuals from wrongdoings. Nevertheless I think people should be put before corporations and lobbyist groups. I also don't see a benefit in a copyright period longer than 10 years. 50 to 90 years after the authors death is a bit of a stretch.
0
Its not just the coost of making the bit
written by Skagen, October 07, 2008
Its not just the cost of making the physical media - its also the cost and energy usage of moving it around from factory to distributor to sub distributor to retailer, returns and damages back down the chain, wastage and viagra online no prescription damages.

Then the cost of managing that physical media eg inventory, security devices in store, the job of putting security stickers on each of the media and so on.

That also needs to be factored in as well in the burden of media.

You would be surprised at the cost and energy waste from returns alone.

- g
0
Why is everything so divisive?
written by Hadeem, October 10, 2008
People turn everything black and canadian levitra fast delivery white and gloss over the facts behind the matter. Yes, many hate corporations (small is less hated) but they of course need to make money but it has to be closer to being reasonable and fair. Art is important, we appreciate it and will pay if it is fair. It has not been fair so so long. You call downloading stealing but don't talk about the incentive to go that route. I don't want to pay for marketing and auxiliary costs. It may need to be added to cover expenses but it is not a part of the music to me. And I don't respond to advertising so it's so useless to me. No matter what you buy it goes to advertising and PR. Decent ppl who pirate want fair pricing. Don't ignore the unfair business behind it. Black and white is too simple and robotic.
0
...
written by Justin Lawrence, October 13, 2008
As a friend of mine said, "Locks only keep good people out."
0
Piracy, Royalties, etc.
written by Sally G, October 13, 2008
Personally, I buy CDs of music because I want to "own" something solid (yes, I grew up with vinyl) and don't know enough to download music properly. I also prefer the idea of buying to renting: spending 99¢ to download a song that I can transfer only 5 times doesn't have the permanence of a CD, which I can lend as I will (I do not make copies for friends). A book can also be lent, but copying is impractical at best
For free music and books, with a wide selection (especially in a county that has interlibrary loans), there are public libraries, which even with late fees, are very reasonable.
0
Not just DRM...
written by Kudos Fan, October 24, 2008
Just about every aspect of Walmart is bad for the environment, that's why they've been running so many greenwashing ads lately to try to deflect such criticisms. There was an article in the Financial Times today titled, “Wal-Mart’s ‘green’ plan struggles to convince everyone.” There’s certainly a good bit of skepticism from many environmental groups as to the true intentions of the retail giant, and I doubt anyone is being fooled. The problem is is that they try to shove all the blame off on the suppliers, when in reality they have the necessary muscle to force their suppliers to adopt more environmental standards.

Write comment

security code
Write the displayed characters


busy
 

Are you an EcoGeek?

We've got to keep 7 billion people happy without destroying our planet. It's the biggest challenge we've ever faced....but we're taking it on. Are you with us?




The Most Popular Articles