Quote:
|
Originally Posted by quux
You say 'DRM prohibits', but I think you really mean 'CURRENT DRM prohibits'.
|
No. I mean "DRM Prohibits".
Today, DRM really doesn't have anything to do with any of what we are discussing. DRM exists to:
1. Eliminate competition (by locking users into a particular device).
2. Allow the content cartel to make law without paying the politians.
The whole idea behind DRM is to prohibit users from exercising their rights.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by quux
Suppose instead of calling for DRM to be removed from everything entirely, we were all calling for a DRM system that preserved Rights #1 and #2 as you enumerated them?
|
This sounds good. But when you dig a little beyond the surface, it gets bad fast.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by quux
I envision a system that lets me register all my content at some central server. Anytime I want to experience that content from a new device, I login to the central server and transfer the music to that new device. In so doing, that content is removed from whatever previous device it was stored on. So at any one time, my copy of the content can only exist on one player device.
|
And when (not if) the server dies or the company goes out of business, your content is locked to the last device.
The "Central Server" is nothing but Big Brother in your devices, controlling (and keeping track of) what is there. What happens when (not if) someone messes up and deletes the information saying that you own your content?
What happens when someone in the Central Server decided to keep a record of who has read what?
What happens when the Central Server decides that they will only support certain devices? Or if the Central Server is by a 3rd party, how will new devices be supported? Will they have to pay Central Server Inc. a fee?
What happens when the Central Server decides that they don't want to support that version of your content and make you pay for it again to get access to it?
The Central Server idea doesn't solve any problems. I am still leasing content at the sufferage of the content owner - or in this case Central Server.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by quux
So, with the above system I would be able to have rights #1 and #2 as you laid them out.
|
The above system is based on the idea that we can have an unbiased (and unbribable) 3rd party to manage content licenses.
That system cannot exist today because:
1. There exists no 3rd party that is acceptable to both the content cartel and the content users.
2. The content cartel's desire to make content users pay every time they want to use the content.
Now, the gov't can step in and force the issue like they did with radio:
The radio stations can play whatever they want paying a flat fee that goes to the content owners. The owners get paid and radio gets content for a reasonable fee. But we still have issues with Big Brother controlling all your devices.
One solution that I had thought of worked like this:
1. Author creates the work and uploads it to a "distribution" site.
2. User downloads the work from the site - which encrypts it with the user's public key - for the device selected. At this point the content is locked to the user/device.
3. The distribution sites send a record of the count the number of times the works were downloaded. All users pay the gov't a "content tax" over the course of the year. The gov't collects the money and distributes it back to the authors based on the number of downloads.
This system is much simpler than yours. No need for Big Brother to be in all devices. No need really for a central server either. The content all costs a "throwaway" price, so people don't mind the short term use restriction. The author whose work is downloaded 1,000 times gets compensated 1,000 times more than the author who is downloaded only once - so authors are compensated by how good their work is.