Quote:
Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash
I don't have much time this morning, but I'll write a few notes before I dive into my weekend.
|
Have a good weekend, then :-) I'll try to do my homework here...
Quote:
Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash
The first damping mechanism is illegality (which can be a moral choice or a logical choice, but for most people the result is the same).
|
This exists also with my social DRM scheme, so it can be ignored when comparing it with the status quo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash
The second damping mechanism is that it takes effort, and the desire to figure it out.
|
Actually, the only one who has to do this effort is the original buyer of a media file. Everyone who subsequently gets the file, from whatever source, gets an already DRM-stripped file so has no work to do. Therefore this cannot be considered a
distributed dampening mechanism, which is the only kind that can limit file diffusion in a world where infinite copies can be produced at negligible cost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash
The third dampening mechanism is the "I wasn't aware there was a problem" crowd - they read a book, move on to the next. For them, reading is a solitary venture, not a communal one, and sharing books never enters their mind.
|
This one, too, is a mechanism that is in place both with the current status quo and with my scheme. So it can be ignored when doing a comparison.
All in all, it still seems to me that my social DRM scheme is better (or, at the very least, certainly not worse) of the current license-based scheme in terms of reducing piracy; while it is vastly better in terms of consumer rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash
My point was that any system MUST be attractive to publishers and retailers. That's why I keep bringing up the potential lost sales. If your focus is only on consumer rights (though a good thing, obviously) then the content providers won't play ball. Period.
|
You are absolutely right. I, too, think the same. This is why, notwithstanding the fact that my "social DRM" was not conceived with the aim of reducing piracy, I put some effort in trying to demonstrate that it will have this (side) effect all the same.
Another aspect that in my view publishers are overlooking is that the type of restrictive/punitive licensing systems that they forced upon their own customers had the side effect of creating a whole generation of people who think that publishers are their enemies and that it's good to fight (read: economically damage) them.
A new system based on respecting customers would do much to offset this situation. Moreover, happy customers buy more than disgruntled ones!
Quote:
Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash
It would take a whole lot of screw ups causing problems for a whole lot of people before it would really sink in, and call me crazy, but I don't think things should work that way. I just feel like you are both underestimating and overestimating human nature at the same time.
|
Maybe I'm doing just this. I don't know.
What I am pretty sure of is that current DRM systems based on licensing are not working in eradicating or substantially reducing piracy, though they work very well in ruining the experience of "buying" media for many people. Not considering the fact that switching from physical media to licensed digital media is creating (for the first time in history!) a situation where each new generation will NOT inherit the books and media of the previous one. This can't have positive effects.
In my view current DRM is not only bad. It's dangerous.