DRM drains your battery by up to 25%

[MatYadabyte]

>>>The lifestyle piece is a purely artificial conciet created by marketing types to make you feel good about spending money on their product that is in many ways just like all the cheaper alternatives.

There are many emergent properties of things that just cannot analysed in simple clear ways and they are not just market speak. Authenticity, Brand, Sentiment, Historical properties, style, fashion, …….

I happen to think that Nike probably will be providing sports foot-wear for the horsemen of the apocalypse when they come. Nonetheless I cant deny that their products have a huge “wealth” of extra qualities that don’t belong in the Chinese’s factory cities where they were made.

Its not just marketing its not artificial.






mat

[Snappy!]

hey all! A good day to y'all!

You know when I read the email subscription, I myself almost flipped off my chair when I read "communism"! hahaha ... what was I thinking ... must be too tired!

I agree with many of the points made. Pirates in some sense, do give free publicity to the bands, or software makers. I mean, I secretly (ok, maybe not so secretly, now that its on a public forum!) believe that DOS and Win95 (and subsequent MS products) became so widespread partly due to piracy. While marketing folks are cracking their head to figure out how to market, sell to and educate consumers to use their new products, pirates dish out the software at a fraction, almost like giving out door-gift freebies at college orientation day! When its free, it seems ppl just try it out! This partly explains how viruses manage to sneak around through social-engineering, but that's a different thread for a different time.

So, yes, piracy has that effect of providing a "free" "service" to the original content maker *and* the official distribution channels. The question is there is no choice here. The original maker and the channels have literally no say in it. Whether they ultimately benefit from it or not, is to a large extent not the question. The question is, you have no say about it. What if someone sneaks up to you and takes a photo of you, and post up your picture on millions of personals sites, with factual information about you. And consequently, you get free publicity and many admirers? Sure, some folks will be balled over and pretty smug about it. But what if you are married and do not need the extra *free* attention. Well, too bad. You didn't get a choice at that.

Assuming we stick with the "Rights" part to DRM and not "Restrictions", we have to consider this. It probably cuts two ways. The rights to use the content by the user, and the rights to the content by the original content maker and/or the official distribution channel. If consumers only wants all the rights of consumer, and no rights to the latter, then its unreasonable. Likewise the reverse.

Along this line, it would be fair to say that current DRM schemes slants towards content makers/distro as it assumes that the user will cheat. This is kinda against the "innocent until proven guilty" thingie. And to be frank, I dislike it as well. However, in all fairness, I think allowing total freedom in copying, swings the balance to the user, leaving the content maker/distro with no say as to whether they want the *free publicity* given by pirates. These to me are two extremes.

I feel that DRM should protect both parties from pirates, whose purpose I believe are less honorable than offering a voice to freedom and providing free publicity. Real pirates are just out to make a quick buck.

Is today's DRM doing that? Not quite. Its restricting consumers from using the content in lawful ways. But I like to separate a certain implementation of DRM which is flawed (today's DRM) vs the idea of DRM itself. Let's not throw the Intellectual Rights baby out the window just because the current DRM nanny is lousy.

[Snappy!]

Originally Posted by MatYadabyte

I happen to think that Nike probably will be providing sports foot-wear for the horsemen of the apocalypse when they come. Nonetheless I cant deny that their products have a huge “wealth” of extra qualities that don’t belong in the Chinese’s factory cities where they were made.

Its not just marketing its not artificial.

I think it would be social convention.

Try throwing a pair of Nike wear to someone not exposed to all the social conditioning provided by today's mass media. I doubt he will give a hoot to it or derive the huge wealth of extra qualities as do someone in modern society.

I would rather say that its not just marketing, nor is it separate from the marketing. (ok, getting a bit ZENnish here! ) Rather the wealth of extra qualities is a combination of social conditioning + the product itself.

[Snappy!]

>> Unauthorised copy != theft

Again, I'm uncertain whether that is still true if we are on the receiving end here, and I mean the one owning content being copied.

This is why knock-off brands are perfectly legal, and why clothing products have the shelf-life of skim milk.

I'm not entirely sure if you are right in equating the two, that clothing shelf-life are short because knock-off brands are perfectly legal, or to state that knock-off brands are perfectly legal.

Furthermore, I doubt knock-off brands are verbatim copies. I seriously doubt you can copy a levis verbatim and not face a law-suit. And as per my earlier post, if you do it for yourself on a one or two copy basis and not on a mass-produce basis, I doubt you will get intro legal trouble. However, just because you don't get sued does not make such actions legal.

The problem about software, music, video and ebooks (which is the case in this forum) is that digital copying does a verbatim copy at least in terms of content. It's an exact copy and it brings these products bordering into the donate-ware realm, where users get to use the products for free and donate at their own take. Again, that could be a good business model for some, and software like firefox itself is kinda like that, although we now know that the firefox foundation gets paid by google whenever someone does a search through the google search box built into FF.

But if software, music, video and ebook makers do not have a choice as to their desired business model, but are forced into a hybrid model because pirates choose to provide free distro service, is it still fair?

[MatYadabyte]

Hi Snappy

Before I sound too pro-pirate I’d like to restate that our company has been loosing cash to pirates for years

I think it is just propaganda, pure and simple, put out I’m not sure by who, that Pirates are out to “make a quick buck”.

Sure, in many of the more developing countries you can find stores selling just Pirate DVDs and people are definitely making cash out of Piracy in those. But what they are exploiting is not the lossless duplication, its the low bandwidth of they country.

So in effect that kind of residual piracy happens because it still relies on the physical.

When you look at the purely digital forms of Piracy, how can you make cash from that?

Its just not possible in any meaningful sense to profit from online piracy. And as soon as you try someone will come and do what your doing for free.

If you lay down you preconceptions about unauthorised duplication and think of what that means, it is actually pretty neat

Mat

[Snappy!]

Hey MatYada,

Sorry to hear about your company's losses.

Bucks, Quick or Otherwise
If its any consolation, I just got back to Singapore after staying in US for 3~4yrs. I have not visited some of the favorite computer haunts in Singapore, but before I left Singapore, I know that a whole assortment of software, vcd and music (100s of mp3s "mastered" into a remix cd!) pirates hawk their goods openly in these places. Trust me, these pirates are there for the buck, quick or otherwise. Sure, they use physical medium to sell their goods, but it does not change the way they take advantage of lossless digital duplication that is available easily.

Broadband
To be on the same page, I think Singapore just turned developed nation a few years back and since 1998/99, I've enjoyed broadband internet access. Not sure if you were referring to low internet bandwidth, but if you were, Singapore definitely had broadband while piracy was rampant.

Today in China (BeiJing, ShenZhen, HongKong), Taiwan, Malaysia etc, you can easily have broadband internet access, but these pirates still churn out the same software, video and music goods, except faster, since technology has improved by leaps and bounds.

The thing is that the average joe in these countries do not have the savvy to use that CD or DVD writer to burn an iso, but has enough streetwise to choose to buy a "discounted" pirate CD/DVD.

Pure Digital
I get a feeling we might be splitting hairs going into "purely digital forms of piracy" ... but just for the sake of consistency, ok, so we cannot make cash from it. So in that same line, pure digital forms of anything cannot be consumed by us. MP3s need to be decoded, piped through the OS, to the hardware drivers as digital data and converted through some DAC on the soundchip and into analog signals that reach our ears as sound. Software in pure digital forms, is not usable since any form of representation is analog. The display itself, if not LCD, is almost pure analog. LCDs are digital, but the light that is transmitted is analog. ... so, ya I doubt anyone can make cash from pure digital forms of piracy.

And as far as online piracy is concerned, I believe I read an article about how DVD pirates are making use of broadband to pipe DVD ISOs from US to their worldwide distro channels for duplication into physical DVDs. These DVDs will end up in the hands of the average joe who are either clueless about burning ISOs, or their source, or just want to pay a few bucks for the movie instead of spending time searching, downloading and burning the movie. Of cos, I must say, I agree with you, that is not pure digital piracy, but they are definitely benefiting from the online part.

French Laws
I was just reading the article about the French Laws passed on Tuesday. I must profess my disdain for content owners/distro who are in cahoots with hardware vendors with their run-only-on-my-brand-machine-DRM.

To be fair, MS' Play-For-Sure seemed honest enough, though I can only imagine the politics behind the scenes with Apple on having a common DRM. But at least this PFS approach (I almost called it a solution) attempts to give end-consumers just that: The ability to know that a device will play the audio file he paid for. It's not as open as plain mp3, but its a compromise.

Let's hope together that more governments awaken to this and enforce such a "Play-Everywhere" DRM approach across the board.

EDIT: hey, I think it should work something like SSL, where the content (in html for web) is separate from the encryption. hehe ... since apache is so light and efficient, maybe DAPs should start embedding apaches into it and use SSL or something huh?

[MatYadabyte]

Hi Snappy

>>>>Sorry to hear about your company's losses.

Not at all, I see it as a tax we pay for this wonderful thing we call the internet and the digital

>>>Trust me, these pirates are there for the buck, quick or otherwise. Sure, they use physical medium to sell their goods, but it does not change the way they take advantage of lossless digital duplication that is available easily.

Yep, I’m with you. But they are radically different from pirates who share on P2P and pirates who burn a copy CD for their Grandmother.



>>>>Broadband
>>>>To be on the same page, I think Singapore just turned developed nation a few years back and since 1998/99, I've enjoyed broadband internet access. Not sure if you were referring to low internet bandwidth, but if you were, Singapore definitely had broadband while piracy was rampant.


Its not just broadband it’s the whole take up of internet at home. I assume people P2P pirate generally from home rather than work, mobile or internet cafe.

>>>>Today in China (BeiJing, ShenZhen, HongKong), Taiwan, Malaysia etc, you can easily have broadband internet access, but these pirates still churn out the same software, video and music goods, except faster, since technology has improved by leaps and bounds.

>>>>The thing is that the average joe in these countries do not have the savvy to use that CD or DVD writer to burn an iso, but has enough streetwise to choose to buy a "discounted" pirate CD/DVD.

Its about balance. If tunes on ITUNES cost ten dollars each then there would be more people who would go pirate rather than legit.

If the cost of a pirate DVD in Hong Kong is still less than the cash/time cost to download the same pirate DVD, then people will continue to pay for piracy. My point is that the latter cost will always drop until it reaches a point that puts the commercial pirates out of business. This has certainly happened in the west.

>>>Pure Digital
>>>I get a feeling we might be splitting hairs going into "purely digital forms of piracy" …….I doubt anyone can make cash from pure digital forms of piracy.

Ha! What sophistry; )

Obviously we are talking about digital “in the wire” not the experience of the digital.


>>>And as far as online piracy is concerned…..


People making money without permission from other peoples work is as wrong, in my book, as people being criminalised for unauthorised duplication.

This discussion has been really interesting, and continues to be so


Mat Ripley

[Snappy!]

hey Mat and all the nice folks here, my sentiments with you about this discussion being interesting and all.

I read like a few comments on the French Law thingie in engadget and end up skipping or leaving with a bad after-taste. Most of the post there end up as "They do!" "Do Not" kind of posts. You get the drift.

The snides aside, there were some interesting points made there as well, which I'll include below for thoughts.

>>Yep, I’m with you. But they are radically different from pirates who share on P2P and pirates who burn a copy CD for their Grandmother.
>>Its not just broadband it’s the whole take up of internet at home. I assume people P2P pirate generally from home rather than work, mobile or internet cafe.

Ah, I seem to see where we concur and differ here. While your approach seem to me as delineating these them into two groups based on their motivation, I group them base on the consequences of their action.

The p2p may just do it for his grandma (poor granny, now she is getting all the rap for listening to Bon Jovi! Should have stuck with Elvis on the vinyl record!), but such actions still lead, as like that of the hawker pirate, to inevitable financial losses on the part of content maker/distro.

From the French Law provision, they seem to be going for two main areas: 1. Inter-operability of audio files among DAPs and 2. Fining of end users who pirate.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060321/...unes_challenge

The new legislation would also introduce penalties ranging from euro38 to euro150 ($50 to $180) for those caught pirating music or movies at home and euro3,750 ($4,600) for hackers who disable copy-protection systems. Those caught distributing software for online piracy face fines of up to euro300,000 ($365,000) and jail terms.

The latter did not seem to turn up much for discussion mostly. But its interesting that the French are also considering that the onus is not just on content distro and DAP makers, but also on home users to work together. Their approach is a prorata (or pro-rated) system where you are fined according to the level of damage you cause from your piracy. So under such a scheme / law, a p2p who sends his granny an mp3, can be fined $50 to $180, and $4,600 for those who disable a copy-protection system, since the latter's action will enable many others to do the former. I'm guessing that they are equating the last group to my definition of a hawker pirate, whose actions will cause the largest damage to the system, and are liable for fines up to $365,000 including jail terms.

I feel its rather exciting right now as we are on like page 2 or 3 of DRM history and we are seeing how the delicate balance between technology, social norms and legislation play out the DRM story. And I see it as part of DRM growing pains. When the dust has settled, hopefully, we the consumers will not have to worry about being left out in the cold with some content that is "protected" from usage because the DAP OEM refuses to support an old DRM format, and we would also not have to pay through our noses for DRMed contents, but have similar pricing like that of the $0.99 tunes!

[MatYadabyte]

Hi Snppy and mobile readers


>>>>Ah, I seem to see where we concur and differ here. While your approach seem to me as delineating these them into two groups based on their motivation, I group them base on the consequences of their action.

Ok… but I am not sure why you would think this. A moral system, which is what we are really talking about here, based on consequences without call to intentions just wont stand up.

Judgements about these situations need to also look at reasons, not just effects. This is the case if we are talking about piracy, murder, industrial mishaps and, I guess, jaywalking.


>>>>>The p2p may just do it for his grandma (poor granny, now she is getting all the rap for listening to Bon Jovi! Should have stuck with Elvis on the vinyl record!),

LOL


>>>but such actions still lead, as like that of the hawker pirate, to inevitable financial losses on the part of content maker/distro.

That’s not true. That’s back to the “deprival of sale” argument made in this thread what seems like many moons ago.

It is not the case that any instance of piracy leads to financial loss to the content owner.

It is the case that some instances of piracy will lead to financial loss but these are the minority. Furthermore, in such cases the content providers, when they get with the modern, have many other avenues to take revenue that don’t rely own “data as property”.



>>>I feel its rather exciting right now as we are on like page 2 or 3 of DRM history and we are seeing how the delicate balance between technology, social norms and legislation play out the DRM story. And I see it as part of DRM growing pains. When the dust has settled, hopefully, we the consumers will not have to worry about being left out in the cold with some content that is "protected" from usage because the DAP OEM refuses to support an old DRM format, and we would also not have to pay through our noses for DRMed contents.

Absolutely. It is exciting. It also could be scary but I don’t think it will be. I expect my Granddaughter to say to me in 40 years time “You mean it used to be wrong to share music?” In much the same way as I could say to my departed “You mean it used to be wrong to be homosexual?”




>>>but have similar pricing like that of the $0.99 tunes!


I think you have hit the nail on the head. The battle shouldn’t be about legal, moral or technology issues, it should be about the price.

Most people seem to be willing top pay for stuff if the price is right. And when you remove the exclusivity of the pre-digital distributors the price should settle to just about right.

Xxx

Mat

[Snappy!]

>>Ok… but I am not sure why you would think this. A moral system, which is what we are >>really talking about here, based on consequences without call to intentions just wont >>stand up.

Well, actually, I'm for both considering the intentions and consequences. But just as a person who killed another in defense commits ManSlaughter while another who kills for vengence commits murder or something, depending on the degree of premeditation. I'm not sure how anyone can make unauthorised duplication on defense or accidentally!

But as I mentioned about the French case, I am for the rated fines. So while I would group the p2p with the hawker pirates, I would consider it fair that each face the music to varying degrees, depending on the consequences and on the intention. In a sense, the consequence in this case, the consequences is strongly linked to the intention. Just as its hard to accidentally plan a mass-murder or grand theft, it is difficult to accidentally distribute software for online piracy.

>>Judgements about these situations need to also look at reasons, not just effects. This is the case if we are talking about piracy, murder, industrial mishaps and, I guess, jaywalking.

I guess I would eat and chew and spit out my words there. It would be that copying for one's granny (granny: When will this ever stop?? ) would not not make one guilty of a major crime (minor offense maybe?), while those committing hawking piracy is clearly committing a crime. So ok, let's not group them together as criminals, lets say its petty crime and felony or something?

I'm not familiar with the US federal laws or the state laws, but surely someone who shoplifts is a thief (or shoplifter!). Maybe there is a rule that says if you shoplift < US$20, you get a slap on the hand, >=$20 and <$100, fine of certain amount ... etc etc. The point is, is there a minimum you must shoplift to "qualify" as a shoplifter? Or is the amount irrelevant?

(Ok, this thread is so [s]funny[/s] cool, we are now going into legislation and stuffs! ... hey, let's run for the senate! Then we can debate over it and actually pass the bills! )

>>>but such actions still lead, as like that of the hawker pirate, to inevitable financial losses on the part of content maker/distro.

>>That’s not true. That’s back to the “deprival of sale” argument made in this thread what >>seems like many moons ago.
>>It is not the case that any instance of piracy leads to financial loss to the content owner.
>>It is the case that some instances of piracy will lead to financial loss but these are the >>minority. Furthermore, in such cases the content providers, when they get with the >>modern, have many other avenues to take revenue that don’t rely own “data as property”.

Yes, its an old case, but your honour and dear members of the jury, lend me thy ears, for I have new evidence that will prove that while it may be difficult to prove that *all* forms of piracy will lead to financial loss to the content owner, any forms of piracy will *not* lead to such a loss.

I completely agree that there are many ways to make a profit from creative contents. But as I mentioned earlier, the p2p piracy that may not lead to financial loss changes the intended business model that was decided upon by the content owner + distro folks.

Would it be fair for us to demand that MacDonalds not have a cashier upfront, but to just serve us the food and let us decide if its worth the money and then pay for it later on? ok, I should not have suggested this, 'cos there will be some folks who feel that MacDonalds is charging too much for a burger and should give us free burgers and stuffs. :P

Would MacDonalds make its intended profit this way? Hey, you never know. Some may just leave the change or pay more since they are getting such a deal. MacDonalds' earnings might not even flinch. But is it right?

How about if we switch it the other way round? How about if some pirates manage to crack our bank accounts and make off with our money. And just so you know, not all of them will run you dry. Some of them will just fish a few dollars for ... their granny! (granny: Leave me out of this, and take your mp3 and $3 with you while you close the door! ) And among them, some will send you mp3s worth $3. No, actually what if all of them did, except that they may take awhile to do so, say 3 months? Or 3 yrs?

Not such a pretty picture anymore eh? But wait, its not the same. p2p do not directly cause or may not cause financial loss. How about if the pirates fish off some money from the bank but not from your account. Consequently or otherwise, the banks consider that as a tax of some sort, or a writeoff. Well, it will ultimately go around and hit someone. Someone. Better hope its not one of us.

>>Absolutely. It is exciting. It also could be scary but I don’t think it will be. I expect my >>Granddaughter to say to me in 40 years time “You mean it used to be wrong to share >>music?” In much the same way as I could say to my departed “You mean it used to be >>wrong to be homosexual?”

Or how about "You mean you guys had to pay for music?"

>>>I think you have hit the nail on the head. The battle shouldn’t be about legal, moral or >>>technology issues, it should be about the price.
>>>Most people seem to be willing top pay for stuff if the price is right. And when you >>>remove the exclusivity of the pre-digital distributors the price should settle to just about right.

Yeap, its always about following the buck. Can someone break the DRM for physical materials already? I need to duplicate that UMPC I saw on this site the other day!

[MatYadabyte]

Hiya


>>>Just as its hard to accidentally plan a mass-murder or grand theft, it is difficult to accidentally distribute software for online piracy.


This raises a point not really discussed, the difference between sharing/ distributed pirated material and “mere” acquisition of pirated material….. but I think we have enough digressions right now! :-)

>>>Copying..would not make one guilty of a major crime (minor offense maybe?), while those committing hawking piracy is clearly committing a crime. So ok, let's not group them together as criminals, lets say its petty crime and felony or something?

But you are still operating from the pre-digital conception of ownership and property. All this talk of theft and crime and felony is exactly what I think is antiquated and mistaken in the modern world.

Until we agree that objects (physical) and data (0101001110) are radically distinct hen this issue will keep cropping up. This is the issue that I believe everything comes back to


>>>I completely agree that there are many ways to make a profit from creative contents. But as I mentioned earlier, the p2p piracy that may not lead to financial loss changes the intended business model that was decided upon by the content owner + distro folks.

The business model is wrong.

>>>Would it be fair for us to demand that MacDonalds not have a cashier upfront, but to just serve us the food and let us decide if its worth the money and then pay for it later on?... … But is it right?



No, that wouldn’t really be fair. But you are talking about things not data


>>>How about if we switch it the other way round? How about if some pirates manage to crack our bank accounts and make off with our money….

I don’t really the logic there. They have stolen direct from us?


>>>>Or how about "You mean you guys had to pay for music?"

Even Better!

Or how about:

“Grandad, its much better now isn’t it. Individuals can get any music they want for free. “Broadcasters” have to pay for the music they use. If music is used in movies or TV or Games the artist gets paid. And there are so many other ways artists and companies can make money that doesn’t relay on data as property…. Like merchandise, fan clubs, concerts, appearances…..”



>>>>Yeap, its always about following the buck. Can someone break the DRM for physical materials already? I need to duplicate that UMPC I saw on this site the other day!

I think that the uncertainty principle is a bit more fundmanetal than the DMCA etc So NO!!

Mat

[MatYadabyte]

If anyone is still reading this I have summarised my views on this really interesting topic on my personal blog www.salted.net

If you go you will treble my hits this month

Mat

[rmeister0]

I seriously doubt you can copy a levis verbatim and not face a law-suit. And as per my earlier post, if you do it for yourself on a one or two copy basis and not on a mass-produce basis, I doubt you will get intro legal trouble.

I did some double checking, and yes, there is NO intellecual property protection in the clothing industry. You can make an exact duplicate of a pair of Levis and sell them all you want.

What you can't do is include the Levi's logo, which is protected by trademark, which is something else altogether.

[Snappy!]

Originally Posted by MatYadabyte

If anyone is still reading this I have summarised my views on this really interesting topic on my personal blog www.salted.net

If you go you will treble my hits this month

Mat

ok, I just did my part with the hit!

EDIT: Remove some chunks ... Decided to give leave DRM cat alone ...

Ah well, I guess we've detract quite a bit already. time to sit back relax and enjoy the DRM show!

[Snappy!]

Originally Posted by rmeister0

I did some double checking, and yes, there is NO intellecual property protection in the clothing industry. You can make an exact duplicate of a pair of Levis and sell them all you want.

What you can't do is include the Levi's logo, which is protected by trademark, which is something else altogether.

Hey, thanks for the info. Now I know! ... no wonder there are sometimes news of all these vendors in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan with Leevis jeans!

So its legal all these while! *bum*