Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jordan
As I said... this was because there was no concrete data for them to work with, so naturally they over-reacted. There is no reason overly-restrictive DRM can't be scaled back to more reasonable levels.
|
Of course there is. Ultimately corporations exist for one reason; to make money. The only reason they will scale back DRM is if it has a concrete positive impact on the bottom line (or they are forced to by laws).
Quote:
|
The technical term is "squatting." The land was never "owned" by the cattle grazers to begin with, so the only thing they were losing was a free lunch.
|
Perhaps, but at one point, no one owned the land. The government simply took it when it decided it wanted it and then gave to the people it wanted to. Since most of the land involved was covered by the Homestead act, essentially the government was taking the free lunch away from one group and giving it to another group.
Quote:
|
The terms "unprecedented" and "major restrictions" are further examples of assuming the worst without concrete reason... see where this is going? Don't panic... it doesn't have to be that bad. A fire can burn down a forest... or it can provide warmth and comfort, when properly used.
|
And as Ray Bradbury pointed out in his most famous novel, a fire can also burn books
Even a controlled fire can be very dangerous if close attention is not paid to how it is used. A basic founding principle of this country was that government should be trusted as little as possible. Large corporations, for the most part, did not exist when this country was founded, but I am sure that many of Founding Fathers would be just as wary of giving large amounts of power to corporations.
Quote:
Sorry... I wasn't aware that we had descended into complete chaos, anarchy, and the destruction of civilization, thanks to the web.
|
End of the world as we know it is not always a negative thing. Surely as one who is a SF writer and claim to be a futurist, you know that the term can have many connetations. That being said, your discussion about the Web suggests that it is ruled by chaos and anarchy (i.e. Wild West references). Certainly civilization has been majorly transformed by the web; there are very few aspects of our lives that have not been transformed by it.
Frankly, I am far les worried about chaos and anarchy in the long run than I am about too much order and too much control; particularly when it is in the hands of corporations who have at best limited accountability.
Quote:
|
No one profits from YouTube videos, either... other than YouTube itself, and those who advertise on the site. Advertising is the real source of revenue... the videos are essentially free giveaways. But convincing the publishing industry that all their literature is worth nothing but carrots drawing people to their paid advertising might be... difficult...
|
I am not saying that the publishing industry needs to adopt the YouTube model. My point was that traditional buisness models for media no longer work. The most successful businesses are the ones that figure out how to adapt to the new environment.
It would be a real shame if 10-15 years from now, there was no better business model for e-publishing than the current one.
--
Bill