Doctorow's Omen Shows why we need to ban DRM

[spindlegirl]

This blog post led me to a Youtube talk by Cory Doctorow and also the transcript on his blog.

[spindlegirl]

Oh wow, I thought I already had it in here... thanks for moving it.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Same old same old.

Doctorow is good at rehashing the same argument from the same points, and conveniently ignoring the points that don't turn him on. His bit about needing but not being able to regulate the wheel, since bad guys use wheeled vehicles to make getaways, is a typically tunnel-visioned analogy, and ignores scores of ways to catch bad guys without "regulating the wheel" (ie, tracking, surveillance, arranged interception, community cooperation, and when all else fails, more wheels).

[Hellmark]

For me, that was kind of the point. There are tons of ways besides regulating the wheel to stop the bad guys. DRM is like regulating the wheel. If there are tons of ways to stop bad guys without regulating the wheel, then shouldn't there be tons of ways to stop badguys without DRM?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Yes, there are; but that's not what Doctorow is talking about. He just wants everyone to accept that the bad guys will get away, and figure out how to profit on their larceny (like giving them a bar to spend their stolen loot in, I suppose).

[Hellmark]

What I took away from it, was that, with the current type of thinking, the crooks do get away, and only the legit customers are hassled.

[Penforhire]

I liked how he put his finger on why dumb related laws get passed, what he called the heuristic. That's what I got from his wheel analogy. Rehashing? Yes, but perhaps in ways that will click with more people. I do like most of his message.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

What I took away from it, was that, with the current type of thinking, the crooks do get away, and only the legit customers are hassled.

Like I said: Same old same old.

[spindlegirl]

Issues that bother people for a long time, and don't get resolved, can easily be seen as same old same old....

People often have to sound like broken records before many people understand where they are coming from for the first time. He pretty much has to rehash this issue or variations thereof, IMO.

[Hellmark]

We deal with this stuff every day, so it is old news to us, but not everyone does. How many people reading that article had never thought of this stuff before?

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Yes, there are; but that's not what Doctorow is talking about. He just wants everyone to accept that the bad guys will get away, and figure out how to profit on their larceny (like giving them a bar to spend their stolen loot in, I suppose).

Doctorow is not saying that in the slightest.

Take his point about Turing completeness. It effectively says that every computer can do the same things as every other computer (this was rigorously and mathematically proven decades ago). Since devices like ereaders are computers, the only way to reduce piracy is to restrict who can write software and have extensive surveilance to ensure that everyone complies.

One of Doctorows arguments is that the cost of those restrictions and surveilence is way too high. If you read his books, you'll find that he is quite paranoid about such things.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

One of Doctorows arguments is that the cost of those restrictions and surveilence is way too high. If you read his books, you'll find that he is quite paranoid about such things.

Yes, I know. But the arguments he presents are the same paranoid points, no more convincing for being repeated.

[Barcey]

Another good speech by Cory and well worth listening to. The only reason that these stupid laws get as far as they do is because the general population doesn't care about copyright laws and the politicians are happy to collect the lobby group money. It's not a voting issue for most people. It sure isn't critical thinking skills that have got SOPA as far as it has.

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Yes, I know. But the arguments he presents are the same paranoid points, no more convincing for being repeated.

A couple of things to keep in mind.

This is a transcript of a lecture. Things like lectures and interviews tend to rehash points because they are directed at different audiences.

Paranoia doesn't automatically make a person wrong. It means that they tend to misinterpret the motivations of others and that misinterpretation leads them to over estimate the magnitude of the consequences. Yet the consequences still do exist.

Overall, that lecture does make valid points. But I do cringe at the degree of paranoia in some of his fictional works (that try to make similar arguments).

[spindlegirl]

So far I have only read "Little Brother". I found it to be quite the thrill ride of a read and pretty much patterned after Nineteen Eighty Four.