Vendors have too many rights

[Bob Russell]

Dan Gillmor is ruffling some heavyweight feathers again, this time with his newest opinion piece in ComputerWorld. The biggest issue related to information and technology is the issue of control. I heartily agree.

"Technology vendors strive for lock-in. They lock us in with obvious tricks, such as Microsoft with its file formats, a monopoly mechanism as pervasive as its Windows desktop control. They control us with digital rights management (DRM, more properly called digital restrictions management) schemes that force us to break the law to make backups or even to quote from other works...

[T]he open-source advantage in the freeing of data and choice. Portability is the most essential escape valve in any data relationship. If you can move it without incurring massive costs, you have leverage. If you can't, you don't. With open-source products, you do...

The technology and entertainment industries don't believe in such rights. For everyone's sake, I hope IT will fight back, and hard."

[PhillyPocket]

Don't people get tired of these pointless headline grabbing rants? He sites no specific examples of how vendor "lock-in" has cause harm. Just some vague nonsense about Microsoft + file formats and IBM thown in for good measure (Strange that he didn't mention HP or Epson in his mini ink cartridge rant.... I guess those buttons are not hot enough). I guess he misses the fact that DRM is a publisher issue, not a provider issue but I guess a computer company is an easier target that an amorphous "Hollywood".

I long since allowed my subscriptions to these technical versions of the National Enquirer to lapse and sad to say, I haven't regretted the decision yet.

[Bob Russell]

That's an interesting alternative view -- that it's just a pointless rant. It might be, but I think it's actually really an important topic and I want people to be more aware so our rights are protected.

I think a lot of people, like myself, are frustrated at the way publishers and studios have taken a control mentality in their approach to content. (As opposed to a much more open view of many others, such as Cory Doctorow, Mark Cuban, etc.)

I think there are a lot of writers are frustrated also at the way they lose control of how their materials are handled, and there's a lot of good materials out there that are locked up by publishers who have legal control, but don't consider it worth their while to print. (Google for Jeff Kirwin's writing on this, for example.)

On the technology side, I've seen it first hand. You really are locked in to a technology once your data is tied up with it, and applications are tied to it. It becomes a frustrating and wasteful game, exaggerated by the rapid changes in the leading technologies. You jump on the leading technology with the most promise of stability, and then 5-7 years later it has to be replaced. My company has taken a very wise and careful balance in its approach to technologies adopted and has avoided a lot of problems, but there's only so much you can do with the rapid changes and the need to accomplish more and faster.

So from my perspective, I really feel like Dan has hit the nail on the head when he considers these issues critical and important and relevant. I think that how much you pay for entertainment and printer cartridge replacements and phone service and internet service and wifi and etc etc are all wrapped up in how lawmakers treat these control issues. The studios try to make it sound like the consumers are winning, but I'd say they still have too much power. For example, my favorite is the length of copyright protections. Past the lifetime of the author seems way too long. And control of Mickey mouse cartoons from ancient days... does that really help the public good, or just the studios?

So I guess it's really a matter of perspective. Do you believe that it really matters, and it's important to increase public awareness if we ever hope to battle the big corpporations, or is it just another silly rant. (Like the silly rant I just got on, I guess! )

Originally Posted by PhillyPocket

Don't people get tired of these pointless headline grabbing rants? ... I guess he misses the fact that DRM is a publisher issue, not a provider issue but I guess a computer company is an easier target that an amorphous "Hollywood".

[PhillyPocket]

My problem isn't with the discussion of the topic. It was with the lack of substance in his article. This particular article was basicly a headline. Did you feel that his article, while "touching a nerve" actually made a point and backed it up? Your reply to my rant had the substance that his article, in a national publication, lacked.

Do I think that a discussion of DRM is important? Yes, but I don't necessarily think of the technology companies as the bad guys. I generally see them as legal enablers of consumption. I think a lot of the conversations get lost in classifying things it terms of good or evil.

You brought up an interesting point with your copyright example. Why should mickey mouse serve the public good? Not that it's a bad thing; but why? Why is it bad for the owner to determine it's use? If I created a work of art (not that I have a creative bone in my body) that I could derive income from, and I wished to leave it to my decendents, so they could continue to derive income from it (assuming anyone still was willing to pay for it) is that wrong? I'm not saying that this is the way it should be, but it did make me think about the question.

And I'm actully going to think more about your post, but I'm at work now and I need to get back to it.

-- cheers