On 01/02/07, Frank Wales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 02/01/2007 08:30 PM, vijay chopra wrote:
> I would rather the BBC aired all that stuff with expired copyright, all
> that copyleft\creative commons talent, and gave exposure to new talent
> who are willing to show me how good they are without dictating how I use
> what I've seen.
I would rather the BBC didn't become YouTube.
If it stays the course, it inevitably will. Its already happened over
10,000 times:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=bbc&search_sort=video_avg_rating
If people prefer to use YouTube to distribute BBC branded content,
because the BBC is unwilling to provide what people want, that's the
BBCs fault.
By supporting the public where it can, perhaps it can mitigate this,
and bring public pressure to bear on the forces stopping the BBC from
providing what people want we want.
I wasn't suggesting the locks and DRM are of equivalent strength,
merely that locks and DRM can both serve the purpose of allowing
people to avoid worrying so much about something they fear.
Generally, avoiding worry is not a solution to the worrying problem,
it only makes the problem grow more complicated. First mover
advantage? :-)
Most
real-world locks are actually pretty bad, but they still work
because few people test them to see if they're really steel or
simply tinfoil.
Analogies between the physical and digital are almost always confusion.
DRM is like steel locks that undo when you tap them 3 times.
Eventually, everyone knows how to tap them, and the lock companies are
a laughing stock. (no pun intended ;)
> are these "media people" so stupid as to believe that DRM gives
> more protection
> against copyright infringement than giving a quality product that people
> want to pay for?
I don't believe the choice is between 'do a good job' or 'protect it with DRM'.
I believe it's between 'publish it without any notional protection and
risk losing control of it', 'publish it with some protection that the
average customer will tolerate and hopefully keep some control of it',
and 'don't publish at all until we see what the real risks and benefits
are'.
Publishers have already lost control. To think that they have not is
living in the rear-view mirror, to paraphrase McLuhan.
This last option is also known as 'last-mover advantage', and
is traditionally favoured by established players in a changing market,
Sure, and we all know how well they do... Sheesh :-)
especially if they can run to their Daddy in the legislature for help
in retarding change until they retire to just outside of Seattle.
Usually the people in Seattle retard change by buying out those who
had first-mover advantage, so that there was no more movement.
Its a shame Daddy in the legislature only gave them a stiff talking
to, instead of taking away some pocket money :-)
I believe that cramming the live-free-of-DRM-or-die mantra
down the unbelievable number of throats that my fellow Earthicans possess
is the argumentative way to re-build our world in true digital glory.
If you have any other plans for "true digital glory," instead of some
subverted defective-by-design hell, I'm all ears :-)
In some ways, DRM is a comfort blanket that the young digital age is
using to get through difficult growing pains; the trick is to make sure
it doesn't get dragged into adulthood, covered in drool and cat hair.
I (think I) agree, except that I believe it is *this year* that this
trick is going down.
We have had Digital Restrictions Management and Treacherous Computing
in games consoles and music players and video players for years,
decades even.
Now is the time to explain why you joined EFF and FSFE, why DRM is
unethical, and technically unworkable anyway, and that there is a
rational response to the disruption caused by digital technologies.
--
Regards,
Dave
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
