Cory Doctorow on DRM on the BBC website

[Bilbo1967]

Spotted this article by Cory Doctorow on DRM. It's from the BBC website.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12701664

[SlowRain]

Pretty good write-up. He picked on my two most hated closed networks, so cheers to him. I also liked his closing lines:

"If your business plan counts on copying going down it's the wrong business plan. It just won't work.

"What you'll do instead is finding yourself locked in an arms race with the people who you're hoping to sell things to."

[Giggleton]

Creative Commons Licenses are a form of DRM yes? In the future we will be able to sell anything we want, including things that others create. That will be fun I think.

[Hellmark]

Licenses I wouldn't say are DRM, since while it is a form of rights management, there is no true digital aspect to it.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Creative Commons Licenses are a form of DRM yes?

No. It's a license, but no attempt is made to enforce them in any technical way, which is what DRM is all about.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Creative Commons Licenses are a form of DRM yes? In the future we will be able to sell anything we want, including things that others create. That will be fun I think.

Sorry, but the *License* is only in place if the author places it there. Copyright still exists and I'm sure there will be traditional publishers available for those that don't want to follow the Creative Commons path.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Sorry, but the *License* is only in place if the author places it there. Copyright still exists and I'm sure there will be traditional publishers available for those that don't want to follow the Creative Commons path.

Am I right in thinking that creative commons licenses are just an abstraction layer above copyright itself?

Kind of like an honor system? I like the honor system.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Am I right in thinking that creative commons licenses are just an abstraction layer above copyright itself?

Kind of like an honor system? I like the honor system.

No. Licenses are not abstractions and the license is on the same abstraction level as copyright. Google it.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Am I right in thinking that creative commons licenses are just an abstraction layer above copyright itself?:

I wouldn't call it an abstraction layer. The authors still hold valid Copyrights on the works.

It's a license telling the intended user how they can use the work. Here is a webpage that helps an author choose which type of license and restrictions on that license.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

I wouldn't call it an abstraction layer. The authors still hold valid Copyrights on the works.

It's a license telling the intended user how they can use the work. Here is a webpage that helps an author choose which type of license and restrictions on that license.

So if copyright is unconstitutional, creative commons licenses are meaningless?

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

So if copyright is unconstitutional, creative commons licenses are meaningless?

Waaa?? Exactly who said Copyright is unconstitutional? *Some* of us may have problems with the current implementation of the Copyright laws, but I would doubt that *most* of us would deny authors copyright protection. Try again.

[Giggleton]

I read this book on the train recently!

No Law: Intellectual Property in the Image of an Absolute First Amendment

[etienne66]

Copyright is constitutional. The constitution says congress has the right to specify a copyright for a limited time. But I have to ask you with respect to the lifetime of a person, what is limited about life plus 70 years? Will this encourage an author who is dead to right new works when he has been in the ground for 20 years?

What if Jane Austen had been dead for only 20 years and whoever inherited the copyright didn't like the idea of "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies?" No one could publish it for another 50 years. How many other great stories don't see the light of day for the same reason. What great movies haven't been filmed because someone could not determine the copyright holder or the copyright holder just didn't like the idea?

Etienne66

[ATDrake]

Originally Posted by etienne66

What great movies haven't been filmed because someone could not determine the copyright holder or the copyright holder just didn't like the idea?

Not quite an exact example, but Florence Balcombe (or was it Bascombe?), widow of Bram Stoker, tried to get all the prints of Fritz Lang's German Expressionist film classic Nosferatu destroyed, alleging copyright infringement when she sued*.

* This, from the useful bonus material in the B&N Classics edition of Dracula.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by etienne66

What great movies haven't been filmed because someone could not determine the copyright holder or the copyright holder just didn't like the idea?

Doesn't matter, since it isn't his property to begin with.