MobileRead Forums - View Single Post

MatYadabyte · 03-19-2006, 12:50 PM

Hi rmeister and volwrath (and anyone else) before I go on I just listened to this and was about post to the thread and saw you ahd. So really, check this Bruce Sterling talk out if you haven’t already.

http://server1.sxsw.com/2006/coverag...ceSterling.mp3

OK….

>>>There's no argument that digital technology is removing some of the cost of duplication. It does not eliminate all of them, and the costs of creating content in the first place - while cheaper - can still be high.

I often wonder as I drive in my car with my Phone or PDA charging, how much does it cost to charge that from the car. Nothing is free, there will be a cost.

This is analogous to the case of duplicating data, its there as a cost but its tiny.

I just don’t think there is a significant or relevant cost to duplicating data, authorised or not.

>>> Clearly a major problem here is the fact that the major distributors in the business fear being disintermediated. I would have no problem with people creating copies of stuff and passing them along, if a) the creator (not the distributor, but the creator) was able to dictate the terms, and b) a reliable payment mechanism was available to compensate the creator for their work. Unfortunately the only way to implement "a" today is through DRM, and I have yet to see any mechanism for "b" that will work with re-selling content except to rely on the honor system.

I have nothing against DRM as a concept.

I believe that people should be able to take reward for their work and stake claim on their work

However if some Norwegian student publishes software that can crack the DRM and someone in Iowa uses the software, those people should not be criminalised. That’s my entire point, unauthorised copying is not theft.

I believe that it is up to the publishers of content to make their content as secure as they feel it needs to be.

I could stress my case the other way: The battle should be between the media companies and the hackers, not between the law (and the media companies) against the hackers and file sharers, et al.

>>>>There's nothing to stop bands from distributing their own stuff free unless they've signed a contract that states otherwise. But the existance of MP3.COM (before it got sold off) and now "GarageBand.com" shows that this works. Many creatives types are finding ways around the RIAA system, and I think that's great. I think writers have a golden opportunity too; but for things like Television and Movies it gets more problematic, because even a cheap movie can still be hundreds of thousands of dollars, and without serious sponsorship you just can't give away that kind of money.

Again, I agree with you. One of the guys in our office is this week going on tour with chart toppers the Ordinary Boys, thanks in part to MySpace.

It’s a wonderful exciting and intriguing time where no one really knows what will happen or what is happening now. It seems to me just wrong that we can criminalise people like we do.

03-19-2006, 12:50 PM	#11
MatYadabyte Zealot Posts: 111 Karma: 1013536 Join Date: Aug 2005	Hi rmeister and volwrath (and anyone else) before I go on I just listened to this and was about post to the thread and saw you ahd. So really, check this Bruce Sterling talk out if you haven’t already. http://server1.sxsw.com/2006/coverag...ceSterling.mp3 OK…. >>>There's no argument that digital technology is removing some of the cost of duplication. It does not eliminate all of them, and the costs of creating content in the first place - while cheaper - can still be high. I often wonder as I drive in my car with my Phone or PDA charging, how much does it cost to charge that from the car. Nothing is free, there will be a cost. This is analogous to the case of duplicating data, its there as a cost but its tiny. I just don’t think there is a significant or relevant cost to duplicating data, authorised or not. >>> Clearly a major problem here is the fact that the major distributors in the business fear being disintermediated. I would have no problem with people creating copies of stuff and passing them along, if a) the creator (not the distributor, but the creator) was able to dictate the terms, and b) a reliable payment mechanism was available to compensate the creator for their work. Unfortunately the only way to implement "a" today is through DRM, and I have yet to see any mechanism for "b" that will work with re-selling content except to rely on the honor system. I have nothing against DRM as a concept. I believe that people should be able to take reward for their work and stake claim on their work However if some Norwegian student publishes software that can crack the DRM and someone in Iowa uses the software, those people should not be criminalised. That’s my entire point, unauthorised copying is not theft. I believe that it is up to the publishers of content to make their content as secure as they feel it needs to be. I could stress my case the other way: The battle should be between the media companies and the hackers, not between the law (and the media companies) against the hackers and file sharers, et al. >>>>There's nothing to stop bands from distributing their own stuff free unless they've signed a contract that states otherwise. But the existance of MP3.COM (before it got sold off) and now "GarageBand.com" shows that this works. Many creatives types are finding ways around the RIAA system, and I think that's great. I think writers have a golden opportunity too; but for things like Television and Movies it gets more problematic, because even a cheap movie can still be hundreds of thousands of dollars, and without serious sponsorship you just can't give away that kind of money. Again, I agree with you. One of the guys in our office is this week going on tour with chart toppers the Ordinary Boys, thanks in part to MySpace. It’s a wonderful exciting and intriguing time where no one really knows what will happen or what is happening now. It seems to me just wrong that we can criminalise people like we do.