arstechnica.com— Hollywood is talking off the record about its real reason for wanting DRM-opportunities to sell you back your rights.
Jan 15, 2007View in Crawl 4
I do not like DRM and wish it were not there. But all this talk whining about draconian DRM is ridiculous. The simple fact is this: the content owners own the fruits of their labor and capital. So they should, in a free market system, have the right to decide how you use it--before you buy it. In order to maximize their revenue from you, they'd liek to restrict your option for using it for that inital pruchase and would liek to surcharge you again and again for subsequent uses. Users would like to minimize the costs of ownership for multiple uses. But the fact remains, in general, that they own it unitl we buy it, when we buy we agree to their terms, and what we buy is up to them and courts to decide.Is it fair? What _is_ 'fair'. It's a business contract: you agree to abide by it when you buy. The courts have focused on what you 'think' you buy and came up with the concept of 'fair use'. But, liek many contracts between business and consumer, it is skewed towards the rights of the business not the consumer. But whining about it won't solve anything. Unitl consumers unite with enough force to fight back, this battle and the war will go to the content providers who have more money, time, resources, and patience. And follish consumers keep fattening their war chests by buying mroe and more of their crippled products.The only real way to force a loosening of DRM is to boycott the products unitl the content owners compromise. Unfortunately so far, too few are willing to engage in such a boycott for any significant period of time, so instead many resort to copying. (I refuse to call it 'piracy' because that is a a poor use of the original term and involed focible commandeering of a ship and often murder and rape--none of whcih copying DRM media involves. Aonther example of the twisted hype the content providers use to create an emotional smoke screen).
I'm not sure YOU understand the meaning of elasticity.If you always buy the same amount of a commodity, then that commodity has an inelastic demand for you. For example, it was posited that gasoline had an inelastic demand. As price went up, consumption didn't really change. The thinking was that people still had to get back and forth to work and grocery shopping, etc. in order to live. I don't remember exactly when this was in the media but it was sometime after the first gas crisis in the late 70s (Yeah... I'm old.)I don't recall the exact summary of the study I read but I kind of recall economists saying that they thought that the prices for gas just hadn't hit the level to see a reduction in demand. Perhaps with the recent run up of fuel prices, we may have better economic data. Although you'd have to take into account inflation. Perhaps fuel prices aren't that much higher than they were in the 70s once inflation is accounted for.
"These are both specifically exempted areas of fair use and are included in fair use so my first amendment rights are not infringed."No, actually, they're "included in fair use" so that they may be used as a defense against a claim of copyright infringement.There is no affirmative fair-use "right." A copyright holder is under no legal obligation to provide his content in any particular medium, arbitrarily defined by someone else.If you put your DRM-protected CD in your stereo and hold a tape recorder up to the speaker, and are sued for copyright infringement, you might wage a defense based on the fair-use clause -- that you were only using the copy for personal use, or what have you. But nobody is obligated to provide you the content in a particular medium simply because other media do not enable a certain form of copying.I don't understand why this stuff is so hard to figure out.Is DRM annoying? Yeah. Is is bad business? Probably -- enough people complain about it. Is there some legal "fair use violation"? Of course not, because there's no such thing.
I think it's clear that the RIAA and MPAA want consumers to only consume, and not infringe on their "exclusive right to produce," because they think money is only allowed to flow one way, to the big corporations and nowhere else.
5hop4orceJan 15, 2007
Correction: That is the actual headline of the original article. I can't believe it.Digg this copy-leftist propaganda down.
digginestdoggJan 16, 2007
I do not like DRM and wish it were not there. But all this talk whining about draconian DRM is ridiculous. The simple fact is this: the content owners own the fruits of their labor and capital. So they should, in a free market system, have the right to decide how you use it--before you buy it. In order to maximize their revenue from you, they'd liek to restrict your option for using it for that inital pruchase and would liek to surcharge you again and again for subsequent uses. Users would like to minimize the costs of ownership for multiple uses. But the fact remains, in general, that they own it unitl we buy it, when we buy we agree to their terms, and what we buy is up to them and courts to decide.Is it fair? What _is_ 'fair'. It's a business contract: you agree to abide by it when you buy. The courts have focused on what you 'think' you buy and came up with the concept of 'fair use'. But, liek many contracts between business and consumer, it is skewed towards the rights of the business not the consumer. But whining about it won't solve anything. Unitl consumers unite with enough force to fight back, this battle and the war will go to the content providers who have more money, time, resources, and patience. And follish consumers keep fattening their war chests by buying mroe and more of their crippled products.The only real way to force a loosening of DRM is to boycott the products unitl the content owners compromise. Unfortunately so far, too few are willing to engage in such a boycott for any significant period of time, so instead many resort to copying. (I refuse to call it 'piracy' because that is a a poor use of the original term and involed focible commandeering of a ship and often murder and rape--none of whcih copying DRM media involves. Aonther example of the twisted hype the content providers use to create an emotional smoke screen).
Closed AccountJan 16, 2007
orbit1979 has been in orbit since 1979
alanlivingstonJan 16, 2007
I'm not sure YOU understand the meaning of elasticity.If you always buy the same amount of a commodity, then that commodity has an inelastic demand for you. For example, it was posited that gasoline had an inelastic demand. As price went up, consumption didn't really change. The thinking was that people still had to get back and forth to work and grocery shopping, etc. in order to live. I don't remember exactly when this was in the media but it was sometime after the first gas crisis in the late 70s (Yeah... I'm old.)I don't recall the exact summary of the study I read but I kind of recall economists saying that they thought that the prices for gas just hadn't hit the level to see a reduction in demand. Perhaps with the recent run up of fuel prices, we may have better economic data. Although you'd have to take into account inflation. Perhaps fuel prices aren't that much higher than they were in the 70s once inflation is accounted for.
actionjaksonJan 16, 2007
/bury any more posts orbit1979 makes
i_soarJan 16, 2007
"These are both specifically exempted areas of fair use and are included in fair use so my first amendment rights are not infringed."No, actually, they're "included in fair use" so that they may be used as a defense against a claim of copyright infringement.There is no affirmative fair-use "right." A copyright holder is under no legal obligation to provide his content in any particular medium, arbitrarily defined by someone else.If you put your DRM-protected CD in your stereo and hold a tape recorder up to the speaker, and are sued for copyright infringement, you might wage a defense based on the fair-use clause -- that you were only using the copy for personal use, or what have you. But nobody is obligated to provide you the content in a particular medium simply because other media do not enable a certain form of copying.I don't understand why this stuff is so hard to figure out.Is DRM annoying? Yeah. Is is bad business? Probably -- enough people complain about it. Is there some legal "fair use violation"? Of course not, because there's no such thing.
denelson83Mar 13, 2007
I think it's clear that the RIAA and MPAA want consumers to only consume, and not infringe on their "exclusive right to produce," because they think money is only allowed to flow one way, to the big corporations and nowhere else.