DRM and eBooks - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 92 Old 05-29-2010, 03:58 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
JerryW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 1,021
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rgb View Post

...remember, there is no more DRM on iTunes, so there is no point in making the iTunes app or store for only Win and Mac.

iTunes is LOADED with DRM - for videos. And that's not going to change any time soon because the dropping of DRM for music was the result of the music industry loathing steve jobs to the point where they decided dropping DRM to get on ipods via alternate sources like amazon and walmart was preferrable than letting jobs dictate terms to them via his total control of the fairplay DRM on ipods.

Apple does not have a similar stranglehold on video distribution so the incentive to drop DRM on video is not there (and Jobs practically owns Disney as the single largest shareholder so he has no interest in dropping DRM for videos either).

Copyright is not property, it is merely a temporary loan from the public domain.
JerryW is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 92 Old 06-05-2010, 03:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
waterhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,264
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I just read a compelling article on why publishers should offer eBooks unencumbered by DRM. It is too long to repost it here, so you can read it here:

http://www.baen.com/library/

Many of his arguments against DRM can also be applied to other digital media. Especially free OTA TV programs.

Thanks to TechieMoe.com for the link.
waterhead is offline  
post #3 of 92 Old 06-05-2010, 04:00 PM
Senior Member
 
darkphoenix22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 261
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I think a universal and decentrialized open source authentication system, involving simple PGP keys, is best.

This way pirates can't share the media but content providers can't restrict it. It's the purest possible internet reimplementation of a copyright system.

The web of trust should be extended to cover media.
darkphoenix22 is offline  
post #4 of 92 Old 06-05-2010, 05:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tux99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,523
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkphoenix22 View Post

This way pirates can't share the media

The only pirates I know are off the coast of Somalia.

My Linux news / reviews / tips+tricks / downloads web site: http://www.linuxtech.net/
tux99 is offline  
post #5 of 92 Old 06-05-2010, 05:03 PM
Advanced Member
 
mntmst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Fairview, Oregon
Posts: 615
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by tux99 View Post

The only pirates I know are off the coast of Somalia.

I saw a few in the Caribbean too.

Combat Xerox Repairman
I make magic smoke.
Need this for HT
mntmst is offline  
post #6 of 92 Old 06-05-2010, 05:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
waterhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,264
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by tux99 View Post

The only pirates I know are off the coast of Somalia.

I think that this weekend there are a few just north of me, on Lake Michigan:

http://www.portpiratefestival.com/
waterhead is offline  
post #7 of 92 Old 06-05-2010, 05:10 PM
Senior Member
 
darkphoenix22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 261
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
How about "unauthorized redistributors"?
darkphoenix22 is offline  
post #8 of 92 Old 06-05-2010, 05:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
waterhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,264
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 12
And I thought that this thread might inspire some intelligent discussions.

What was I thinking?
waterhead is offline  
post #9 of 92 Old 06-05-2010, 05:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tux99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,523
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterhead View Post

I think that this weekend there are a few just north of me, on Lake Michigan:

http://www.portpiratefestival.com/

Sounds like a fun day out, especially for kids!


With regards to the article you link to in the first post, I fully agree, it's plain obvious how the music and movie mafia has shot themselves in the foot with their fight against online media sharing. I cannot recall anyone I know who has any sympathy left for them, and that's never a good thing considering the content mafia still wants us to be their customers...

I would never buy any content that's restricted (unless the restriction can be overcome easily) and I'm growing more and more resentment against giving them any money at all as long as they use part of that money to fight their own customers.

My Linux news / reviews / tips+tricks / downloads web site: http://www.linuxtech.net/
tux99 is offline  
post #10 of 92 Old 06-05-2010, 05:28 PM
Senior Member
 
darkphoenix22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 261
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Eh. I just want something that only authorizes, doesn't restrict and is publicly owned. It should also be able to be implemented on every device.
darkphoenix22 is offline  
post #11 of 92 Old 06-05-2010, 05:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tux99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,523
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkphoenix22 View Post

Eh. I just want something that only authorizes, doesn't restrict and is publicly owned. It should also be able to be implemented on every device.

That exists already, it's called pdf or html or rtf for books, mp3 or flac for music, and mkv or mp4 for movies.

My Linux news / reviews / tips+tricks / downloads web site: http://www.linuxtech.net/
tux99 is offline  
post #12 of 92 Old 06-05-2010, 05:35 PM
Senior Member
 
darkphoenix22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 261
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
And authenticated (not restricted) if needed.
darkphoenix22 is offline  
post #13 of 92 Old 06-05-2010, 05:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tux99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,523
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkphoenix22 View Post

And authenticated (not restricted) if needed.

No thanks, that adds no value for me as a customer.

You are preaching on the wrong forum, FOSS software and freedom restrictions mix like oil and water.

My Linux news / reviews / tips+tricks / downloads web site: http://www.linuxtech.net/
tux99 is offline  
post #14 of 92 Old 06-05-2010, 05:58 PM
Rgb
AVS Special Member
 
Rgb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 6,891
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterhead View Post

I just read a compelling article on why publishers should offer eBooks unencumbered by DRM. It is too long to repost it here, so you can read it here:

http://www.baen.com/library/

Many of his arguments against DRM can also be applied to other digital media. Especially free OTA TV programs.

Thanks to TechieMoe.com for the link.

Read this, too, for those who need more to "get it" (rhetorical- no one in particular)-

The Right to Read

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html


...there is ZERO logical and philosophical difference among the printed word (paper books, .pdf's, ASCII text files), printed sound (CD's, audio DVD's, SACD's) and printed video (DVD"s and BluRays).

The Right to Read allegory pertains to words, sound (spoken or music) and video, however delivered.
Rgb is offline  
post #15 of 92 Old 06-05-2010, 06:55 PM
Senior Member
 
darkphoenix22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 261
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by tux99 View Post

No thanks, that adds no value for me as a customer.

You are preaching on the wrong forum, FOSS software and freedom restrictions mix like oil and water.

I'm sorry but no sane media company is going to let their media be transferred over a distributed network (such as P2P) without an authentication mechanism. I've already been flamed for being a pirate for even suggesting that paid media should be distributed over Bitorrent.
darkphoenix22 is offline  
post #16 of 92 Old 06-05-2010, 07:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tux99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,523
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkphoenix22 View Post

I'm sorry but no sane media company is going to let their media be transferred over a distributed network (such as P2P) without an authentication mechanism.

They don't have to let it, it's already happening whether they allow it or not.
Now they just have to chose whether to face reality and make some money out of it by offering a BETTER alternative, or keep their head buried in the sand and lose money.

If movies were available to download at a reasonable price (noticeably less than the DVD version, I'd say 5$ max. for anything older than 2 years) and WITHOUT DRM a lot of people would buy them to avoid the hassle of P2P or usenet downloads or other file sharing methods.

The music industry has recognized this and therefore these days music is mostly available without DRM, but IMHO still overpriced.
I wouldn't pay more than 30-50 cents for a song so I generally prefer second hand CDs off ebay or Amazon rather than mp3 downloads.

My Linux news / reviews / tips+tricks / downloads web site: http://www.linuxtech.net/
tux99 is offline  
post #17 of 92 Old 06-06-2010, 07:02 AM
Rgb
AVS Special Member
 
Rgb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 6,891
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by tux99 View Post

They don't have to let it, it's already happening whether they allow it or not.
Now they just have to chose whether to face reality and make some money out of it by offering a BETTER alternative, or keep their head buried in the sand and lose money.

If movies were available to download at a reasonable price (noticeably less than the DVD version, I'd say 5$ max. for anything older than 2 years) and WITHOUT DRM a lot of people would buy them to avoid the hassle of P2P or usenet downloads or other file sharing methods.

The music industry has recognized this and therefore these days music is mostly available without DRM, but IMHO still overpriced.
I wouldn't pay more than 30-50 cents for a song so I generally prefer second hand CDs off ebay or Amazon rather than mp3 downloads.

+1 on all points, particularly the overpriced music download business. I also believe $1-$2 is more appropriate for a non-DRM movie download- it shouldn't cost much more than a Redbox or local mom and pop disc rental.

The IP cartel's will jockey and lobby for ever-increasing ridiculously restrictive IP law until their demise, harming societal progress and individual's freedoms and livelihoods in the process.

The models for distribution of all video and audio have been in place for years and work quite well, as tux99 mentioned- bt/P2P and usenet.

In the long run, music and movie distribution must follow the usenet model- pay a flat monthly rate and download all the music and movies/TV shows you want. The usenet providers do this now and make money. I wouldn't be suprised if the IP cartels (RI/MPAA) secretly have a business interest in the big usenet provider(s), either owning a portion at a distance or getting kickbacks from the big paid providers.

IMO, IP cartels must be outlawed. Collective copyright/patent pool cartels like the RIAA/MPAA, MPEG-LA, $ANY_CORPORATE_PATENT_POOL, etc, are the antithesis of a free (speech) society and need to be abolished by law. Copyright and patent holders (creators of works) should be required to defend their own copyrights. Only real people (artists, software writers, inventors, creators of IP) should be allowed by law to own copyrights, not immortal psychopaths-

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0218-01.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation

This would go a long way towards fixing the abusive power grab of IP holders we are currently experiencing.
Rgb is offline  
post #18 of 92 Old 06-06-2010, 07:29 AM
Senior Member
 
darkphoenix22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 261
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
My system would allow reselling and is intended to allow artists to sell directly to the consumers. The authentication system would be publicly owned and operated.

Is it really a handcuff if we hold the key?
darkphoenix22 is offline  
post #19 of 92 Old 06-06-2010, 07:39 AM
Rgb
AVS Special Member
 
Rgb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 6,891
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Related to the all-you-can-eat-Music/Movies/TV usenet download model-


It's time for universal data plans


http://news.cnet.com/8301-31322_3-20...6.html?tag=pop

...you can't have unlimited downloads without unlimited/flat rate data plans, so the two are inter-connected.
Rgb is offline  
post #20 of 92 Old 06-06-2010, 07:44 AM
Rgb
AVS Special Member
 
Rgb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 6,891
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkphoenix22 View Post

My system would allow reselling and is intended to allow artists to sell directly to the consumers. The authentication system would be publicly owned and operated.

Is it really a handcuff if we hold the key?

Unneeded if the intent of copyright of the Constitution were upheld-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_..._copyright_law

Quote:


Key laws regulating U.S. copyrights and their key effects include:

* Copyright Act of 1790 - established U.S. copyright with term of 14 years with 14-year renewal
* Copyright Act of 1831 - extended the term to 28 years with 14-year renewal
* Copyright Act of 1909 - extended term to 28 years with 28-year renewal
* Universal Copyright Convention - ratified by the U.S. in 1954, and again in 1971, this treaty was developed by UNESCO as an alternative to the Berne Convention
* Copyright Act of 1976 - extended term to either 75 years or life of author plus 50 years; extended federal copyright to unpublished works; preempted state copyright laws; codified much copyright doctrine that had originated in case law
* Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 - established copyrights of U.S. works in Berne Convention countries
* Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) of 1994 - restored U.S. copyright for certain foreign works
* Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 - extended terms to 95/120 years or life plus 70 years
* Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 - criminalized some cases of copyright infringement
* Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005 - criminalized more cases of copyright infringement, permitted technology to "sanitize" works

Every change to copyright law since 1790/1831 were purchased by and/or unduly influenced by an immortal psychopath.

The original intent was for the right of *Distribution* for a *Limited time*.
Rgb is offline  
post #21 of 92 Old 06-06-2010, 08:00 AM
Senior Member
 
darkphoenix22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 261
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The problem is copyright as is doesn't extend well to the Internet as anyone has access to the means of publishing content.

The authentication system would merely be an extension of copyright, restricting publication *not* use and access.

It would be very similar to the clause you see in books where you can not sell a book without its cover. This stipulation does not effect end users but it does force *publishers* and *vendors* to obtain permission to republish and resell the content.

Note: I agree that copyright should only apply for 20 years after publication. Intellectual property should enable innovation instead of promoting empty entitlement.

-----

Honestly, the only way to extend copyright to embrace the distributed nature of the Internet is to extend the "web of trust" to cover media.

We need a open and distributed way to prevent unauthorized republication of content.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_of_trust
darkphoenix22 is offline  
post #22 of 92 Old 06-06-2010, 09:16 AM
Rgb
AVS Special Member
 
Rgb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 6,891
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkphoenix22 View Post

The problem is copyright as is doesn't extend well to the Internet as anyone has access to the means of publishing content.

.

Sure it does. Why would a free (speech/liberties) society want to restrict the *means* of publishing content!?

Yes, the Internet has a disruptive, revolutionary effect on the dissemination and publication of information- words, sounds, pictures and moving pictures.

Most freedom-supporting people I know think this is a Good Thing.

Most totalitarian types like the China governments and IP cartels of the world think this is a Bad Thing.

Which group do you think wants controls on publishing or ANY phone-home "authentication" scheme?

The price you pay for a free society is an uneasy balance between monopolising ideas for a limited time (Copyright) and the will/needs/wants of the public, i.e. the Rest of Society.

I don't think ANYONE (other than the IP cartels) thinks the current IP legal framework is balancing the needs of a freedom-preferring society and IP creators. The balance of power is now SO far in favor of those pursuing "empty entitlement" so as to be damaging to society, its progress, injurious to individuals and their cultural heritage, and downright comical and frightful at the same time.
Rgb is offline  
post #23 of 92 Old 06-06-2010, 09:24 AM
Senior Member
 
darkphoenix22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 261
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I believe that media companies aren't efficiently using the Internet as a platform. They are still scared of it. And they still wish to profit from region restrictions. Media *should* be a global perfectly competitive market so markets and customers are never left unserved or underserved.

However, the solution isn't to abolish copyright. The solution is to provide a mechanism that restricts the right to "copy" (for a limited period of time) but not the right to "use" or "access". And to force the cartel to use it.

Media can never be free. Because if media was free, there would be no economic incentive to produce it. Media, however, *can* be made open. And there is every economic incentive for media to be made open.
darkphoenix22 is offline  
post #24 of 92 Old 06-06-2010, 09:45 AM
Rgb
AVS Special Member
 
Rgb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 6,891
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkphoenix22 View Post


However, the solution isn't to abolish copyright. The solution is to provide a mechanism that restricts the right to "copy" (for a limited period of time) but not the right to "use" or "access". And to force the cartel to use it.

Media can never be free. Because if media was free, there would be no economic incentive to produce it. Media, however, *can* be made open. And there is every economic incentive for media to be made open.

Copyright doesn't need to be abolished, just brought back to it's original intent and reflect a better balance between IP producers (the people producing, not the companies with IP portfolios) and the needs of society and wants of consumers.

It is impossible to restrict the act of copying while simultaneously allowing "use" of words, sound, pictures and video. So don't try. Only distribution can be legislated, with civil suits brought by individual's holding the copyright providing sufficient balance in the system.

Media has never been free (beer)- there has always been a cost borne by the consumers of media to consume media- their time and effort. Simply reading, listening to or watching copyrighted material consumes the user's time. It takes effort to drive to the library, store, Redbox, or rental outlet to obtain copyrighted material, or to time/effort to purchase or rent online.

Additional premium time and mental bandwidth is also paid by media consumers for ads displayed with copyrighted material.

Re: if media were free, there would be no economic incentive to produce it.

Utterly preposterous.

http://revision3.com/shows
(mildly ad supported)

http://www.theforce.net/fanfilms/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_fan_productions

http://www.bigbuckbunny.org/

http://www.wolfire.com/humble
http://www.indiegames.com/blog/2010/...ie_bundle.html
The Humble Indie Bundle games experiment will be recorded as a watershed event in indie games publication.

http://www.ubuntugeek.com/getdebplay...lable-now.html
Large repository of free (speech and beer) games.

http://radio3.cbc.ca/

It is a privilege for an "artiist" to be paid for their work/performance. There is no "should" or "must" or "right". Artists will always produce and perform for their own fulfilment.
Rgb is offline  
post #25 of 92 Old 06-06-2010, 09:48 AM
Senior Member
 
darkphoenix22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 261
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
It is the right of the artist to restrict unauthorized publication of his work.

It is this very principle that allows the GPL to exist at all.

It is the choice of the artist whether or not he wishes to place his media under copyleft. Copyleft should never be something that is forced, unless their work is a direct derivative of another work placed under copyleft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft
darkphoenix22 is offline  
post #26 of 92 Old 06-06-2010, 09:54 AM
Rgb
AVS Special Member
 
Rgb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 6,891
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkphoenix22 View Post

It is the right of the artist to restrict unauthorized publication of his work.

It is this very principle that allows the GPL to exist at all.

You are absolutely correct.

If someone tries to distribute/publish an artist's/creator's work without their permission, the artist/creator should file a civil action against the violator.
Rgb is offline  
post #27 of 92 Old 06-06-2010, 09:57 AM
Senior Member
 
darkphoenix22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 261
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rgb View Post

You are absolutely correct.

If someone tries to distribute/publish an artist's/creator's work without their permission, the artist/creator should file a civil action against the violator.

There is no way of preventing unauthorized publication of digital content without utilizing encryption.

However, both the means of encryption and the means of access should be free and open.
darkphoenix22 is offline  
post #28 of 92 Old 06-06-2010, 10:07 AM
Rgb
AVS Special Member
 
Rgb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 6,891
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkphoenix22 View Post

There is no way of preventing unauthorized publication of digital content without utilizing encryption.
.

There was never a way to prevent unauthorized publication of analog sound and video. Why is digitizing it any different?

That's the check and balance on a free society.

If you want a free (speech) society in principle, you cannot restrict what a citizen *might* do with their private property in their private domain.

The statement above is the same as saying "there is no way of preventing unauthorized speeding without installing governers on all moving vehicles, governers that check back with a central control facility" or " there is no way of preventing unauthorized bullet discharges from guns, so all guns must have sensors to detect other humans in their sights and discharge preventers linked to a government central control facility to disable the gun when deemed necessary".

Someone could use a car to commit a crime. Or a knife. Or a piece of cord. Do we add regulated restrictions and technical controls to all of these for what a private citizen *might* do with them?
Rgb is offline  
post #29 of 92 Old 06-06-2010, 10:10 AM
Senior Member
 
darkphoenix22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 261
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rgb View Post

There was never a way to prevent unauthorized publication of analog sound and video. Why is digitizing it any different?

If you want a free (speech) society in principle, you cannot restrict what a citizen *might* do with their private property in their private domain.

The statement above is the same as saying "there is no way of preventing unauthorized speeding without installing governers on all moving vehicles, governers that check back with a central control facility" or " there is no way of preventing unauthorized bullet discharges from guns, so all guns must have sensors to detect other humans in their sights and discharge preventers linked to a government central control facility to disable the gun when deemed necessary".

Because digital content can be perfectly replicated and republished with a single click.

Replicating and republishing analog media is a onerous process that inherently results in a loss of quality on each replication.

Furthermore, everyone has access to means of replicating and republishing digital media on the Internet, a simple computer. You need a lot more than a computer to replicate and republish analog media in the analog world.

These situations are NOT one-to-one as you claim. The artist needs a digital method of digitally protecting their right to restrict unauthorized publication of his work.

The "web of trust" using PGP keys is the only facility that would protect the rights of the artist while protecting the rights of the user to universally access and use his media. As the user would need is the key, not certain hardware. As the key would be universal, there would also be no region restrictions.

You may have the right to use and access the artist's content, but you DO NOT have the right to publish unless it is explicitly given.
darkphoenix22 is offline  
post #30 of 92 Old 06-06-2010, 10:13 AM
Rgb
AVS Special Member
 
Rgb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 6,891
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkphoenix22 View Post

Because digital content can be perfectly replicated and republished with a single click.
.

Why does that matter to copyright? The *ease* of replication was never an issue when copyright law was established. And no, it's not because they couldn't "foresee it".
Rgb is offline  
Reply HTPC - Linux Chat

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off