MobileRead Forums - View Single Post

rmeister0 · 03-19-2006, 12:19 PM

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.

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.

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.

Volwrath: No, not being able to re-sell your digital content is not theft because you know this is the case before you buy. You are accepting this limitation by participating in the system. No one is stopping you from going to a store and buying a CD instead of a digital download, and paper books are still available by the truckload. If you don't agree with DRM, don't buy DRM'd products. That what I do, and I don't fret about it.

You were allowed to do this in the past because you were purchasing and reselling a physical artifact - a book, a LP, or whatever. You were not reselling the content, but the object the content was a part of. First sale doctrine protected your right to do that. In the digital arena, this does not apply beceause there is not manufactured artifact involved.

03-19-2006, 12:19 PM	#10
rmeister0 Addict Posts: 270 Karma: 298 Join Date: Mar 2005	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. 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. 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. Volwrath: No, not being able to re-sell your digital content is not theft because you know this is the case before you buy. You are accepting this limitation by participating in the system. No one is stopping you from going to a store and buying a CD instead of a digital download, and paper books are still available by the truckload. If you don't agree with DRM, don't buy DRM'd products. That what I do, and I don't fret about it. You were allowed to do this in the past because you were purchasing and reselling a physical artifact - a book, a LP, or whatever. You were not reselling the content, but the object the content was a part of. First sale doctrine protected your right to do that. In the digital arena, this does not apply beceause there is not manufactured artifact involved.