DRM is understandably unpopular, but lets not get too carried away with its implications.
DRM mechanisms are already present in many of the formats people use today. It causes no problem at all for unprotected media. Its only a restriction if the content creator/distributor chooses to use it, so the issues it raises will not rear their ugly heads for any vlogger who is against DRM. DRM is probably incompatible with creative commons, but again this only applies if you decide to protect your stuff with DRM, you can still use formats that technically allow DRM, just dont use that feature. Now if it was virtually impossible to download flash files, then CC would be against the use of flash, as this is denying users rights to download and redistribute content, which is a central right in creative commons. What that BBC story was refering to the fact that Adobe announced a desktop player app that would make downloading flash video even easier, but to stop their customers who are not progressive, and believe in tight control, from totally going nuts, they've given them the option to use DRM to restrict things for the users. Again this will only affect content where DRM is being used. This stuff is all about business, and the old-fashioned ways of monetizing creative works, by attempting to levy a charge on their distribution. Vlogging is generally against that, and so DRM is largely irrelevant, a future nightmare scenerio where all content is locked down with DRM, seems highly unlikely as nobody cares about protecting all content, just content that wants to be protected. I know there was that case where Sony (I think) persued an over the top DRM strategy that backfired when they used a system that sucked and caused potential security breech to users who had the stuff installed, and perhaps this has confused the issue somewhat. Anyway Sony & others probably learnt a painful lesson from that, and these days whilst DRM is far from dead, some have become more progressive about these issues, whilst others are at least balancing their appetite for control with the potential losses from using technology that sucks so bad it costs them customers. Its all about money, after all, and if protecting your content isnt part of the economy, nobody cares about forcing DRM on your stuff, DRM will not make your future hell. That is unless vloggers decide they actually want a bit more of DRM and the old ways of control. If the arse falls off the immature video advertising market, or people run out of other options, some people who make shows with an aim to make some proper dosh, might start looking at the old systems of controlled distribution and decide they want a piece of that action. I dont see many signs of this, although lots of people on this list have often been very hostile when others are rehosting their content, it seems to have been deemed as at the very least bad etiquette, and thus I occasionally waffle about how this competely contradicts creative commons principals, oh well. I suppose in the future, depending on how various 'new media networks' evolve, some vlogers may do deals where one of these networks becomes their publisher but they have a DRM policy or something else that places limits on redistribution of your show by others. I hate DRM and I hope the concept is gradually abandoned, but its just not any sort of threat or worry for vloggers, indeed it continues to give a real advantage to independent content, unburdened by it compared to shows that are on a DRM-loving network. There are musicians out there who would like to do stuff with their back-catalog but their publisher has a lot of say in that stuff and so they get thwarted if their publisher isnt progressive. Its darn frustrating for them, and the lesson is to read smallprint and consider wider implications before doing deals. Cheers Steve Elbows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > not sure if this means what i think it means but: > > "...the big seller for Adobe is the ability to include in Flash movies > so-called digital rights management (DRM) - allowing copyright holders to > require the viewing of adverts, or restrict copying." > > from > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6558979.stm > > not that flash is fun to convert for copying/remixing, > but it is doable.... > maybe in the future it won't be a possiblity > for flash or quicktime either... > > > > On 8/30/07, Steve Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Well yes its a good thing to support formats that are apparently > > unimpinged by patents, and where encoding and decoding stuff for the > > formats is available as open source. > > > > I dont think the example of DRM is a very likely future nightmare > > reason why people would abandon flash or quicktime, as support for > > DRM-content can coexist quite peacfully with all the non-DRM uses of > > stuff, but yes, there are reasons why people would want to back an > > open format that is free in multiple senses of the word. > > > > An example of people wanting to switch away from h264 in future would > > be if they put some silly licenses costs on content creators who use > > h264, when these terms are updated in 2010 or something. > > > > Or yeah if Adobe went insane and did something to flash player that > > made people not want it installed on their machines. > > > > If these sorts of things dont happen, then there arent too many > > reasons to assume ogg will go massive, but its nice to have it around > > and support for it in many tools, it is based on good principals and > > could be important in the future, depends how many corporations > > behave, and we know from human experience that we cant bank on them > > always being good corporate citizens. > > > > Am I right to assume the Ogg Theora video playback is provided by this > > java app? > > > > http://www.flumotion.net/cortado/ > > > > Ive joined the showinabox google group but havent had a moment to post > > there yet, will take most of m future input on this stuff otver there > > from now on. > > > > I just encoded my first ogg file, using this quicktime plugin stuff: > > > > http://xiph.org/quicktime/download.html > > > > It seemed to go ok, but it is late now and Im tired, so I will have to > > stop for tonight. > > > > Cheers > > > > Steve Elbows > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>, > > "Jay dedman" <jay.dedman@> wrote: > > > > > > > The main features of this release is being able to play Ogg video with > > > > the included cortado Ogg player. And on wordpress you can share the > > > > embed code of your videos so viewers can embed the video on their > > sites. > > > > To download only vPIP go to: > > > > http://vpip.org/ > > > > and select the document page for where you'll be installing vPIP. > > > > To download this version of vPIP with ShowInABox go to: > > > > http://showinabox.tv/wordpress/download/ > > > > and get "The Whole Enchilada" > > > > > > and just to be more clear why this new version of vPIP rocks like a > > > crazy animal with superpowers: > > > > > > Enric included an Ogg player in vPIP...so if you provide an Ogg > > > version, anyone can watch it without any installation. The embedded > > > video will play like flash. The viewer wont know the difference. > > > > > > Why is this important? > > > on the Showinabox list (http://groups.google.com/group/show-in-a-box), > > > we've been talking about Ogg which is an open source codec....similar > > > to Flash. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogg) > > > The big question is: what happens if Flash or Quicktime starts putting > > > DRM in their codec? or starts putting in limitations we dont want? > > > There's not much we could do. But Ogg, like wordpress, is infinitely > > > malleable. Lots of challenges to overcome, but enric did a big thing > > > by making the Ogg viewing experience seemless. > > > > > > The new vPIP also has a "multiple embed-code generator", or Share. > > > This lets the viewer choose which video format they want to embed on > > their site. > > > a person might want the 320x240 Flash version. > > > someone else might want to embed the 640x480 HD quicktime. > > > choices!!!!! > > > > > > forward and onward. > > > > > > Jay > > > > > > > > > -- > > > http://jaydedman.com > > > 917 371 6790 > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Me ----> http://RyanEdit.com > Twitter------>http://twitter.com/Ryanne > Documenting Green ---->http://RyanIsHungry.com > Educate ----> http://FreeVlog.org > iChat/AIM ----> VideoRodeo > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
