or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › HTPC - Linux Chat › DRM and eBooks
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DRM and eBooks - Page 2

post #31 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkphoenix22 View Post

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 media in the analog world.

That is the HUGE power shift underway. The former holders of power (the IP cartels) want to enact restrictions no different from a totalitarian state (China).

Why is it wrong to give citizens their power back?
post #32 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkphoenix22 View Post


These situations are NOT one-to-one as you claim.

Prior to the DMCA, I would have agreed, because the analogies I listed were criminal offences.

Copyright infringement prior to the DMCA was only a civil offence.

So, in this post DMCA world, analogies that involve criminal offences are now valid.
post #33 of 92
Why is it wrong for the artist to keep their rights to their content if they so choose?
post #34 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rgb View Post

Prior to the DMCA, I would have agreed, because the analogies I listed were criminal offences.

Copyright infringement prior to the DMCA was only a civil offence.

So, in this post DMCA world, analogies that involve criminal offences are now valid.

The problem is the DMCA not copyright.

The DMCA is not universal. It does not exist in my country (Canada) and most others. We have the right to pick the lock, if it is absolutely necessary to access the content.

Perhaps, it is time for your country to reform.
post #35 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkphoenix22 View Post

Why is it wrong for the artist to keep their rights to their content if they so choose?

An artist always keeps all theoretical legal rights to the content he/she produces, that doesn't change the fact that media sharing (not just over the internet) is a reality that has always existed and will always exist, so the artist or the corporation that buy up the right from artists to commercially exploit them, have two choices:

Deal with reality and try to make money out of it, or bury their head in the sand and sue their customers rather than try to sell the media to them in a way that is competitive compared to media sharing methods where they don't profit from.

It all boils down to what the customer prefers, if the artists/companies offer the media media at a price/quality/convenience point that makes other sharing methods not worth the hassle, then they will make money and have satisfied customers, otherwise they won't make money.

It's that simple, everything else is theoretical pointless arguing.
post #36 of 92
The artists need to protect their media from unauthorized reproduction due to pure economics. If their content is available for free, everywhere, who will pay?

The protection however should be provided by open technology, such as PGP. Society should hold the key, not a corporation.
post #37 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkphoenix22 View Post

The artists need to protect their media from unauthorized reproduction due to pure economics. If their content is available for free, everywhere, who will pay?

The protection however should be provided by open technology, such as PGP. Society should hold the key, not a corporation.

No offense but you sound like a stuck record. What you are saying could make sense in theory, but unless the consumers see a practical advantage in your model compared to current reality, your system will flop like all the other DRM attempts.

Your fundamental mistake is that you try to cater for what the artists/media mafia wants rather than look at what a consumer would chose when comparing your system to current reality.
post #38 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by tux99 View Post

No offense but you sound like a stuck record. What you are saying makes sense in theory, but unless the consumers see a practical advantage in your model compared to current reality, your system will flop like all the other DRM attempts.

Your fundamental mistake is that you try to cater for what the artists/media mafia wants rather than look at what a consumer would chose.

I cater for what the artist wants as I am an artist as well.

I have chosen to release my work under the GPL, but I still believe copyleft is something that should always be chosen, never forced (unless it is a derivative work).

Ownership is granted to the artist. Access and use is granted to the user, unless the work is placed under copyleft or under public domain.

It has never been the inherent right of the user to copy and republish the work of the artist without explicit permission.
post #39 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkphoenix22 View Post

I cater for what the artist wants as I am an artist as well.

I have chosen to release my work under the GPL, but I still believe copyleft is something that should always be chosen, never forced (unless it is a derivative work).

The artist can chose whatever he wants, but the practical reality is that the moment he publishes his work he lost control over it, so to make money off his work he has to offer it at conditions (price/convenience/quality) that are better than available alternatives where he doesn't make any money from and which will always exist whether he likes them or not.

You (as many artists and as the media mafia) are confusing theoretical legal constructs with practical reality.
post #40 of 92
I think you misunderstand copyright.

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

"Copyright is the set of exclusive rights granted to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work. These rights can be licensed, transferred and/or assigned. Copyright lasts for a certain time period after which the work is said to enter the public domain. Copyright applies to a wide range of works that are substantive and fixed in a medium. Some jurisdictions also recognize "moral rights" of the creator of a work, such as the right to be credited for the work."

You are not granted *copyright* when you buy the work of the artist. You are granted the right to use and access it under the conditions of the license. Not the right to republish it, unless otherwise given.

-----

Quote:
Originally Posted by tux99 View Post

The artist can chose whatever he wants, but the practical reality is that the moment he publishes his work he lost control over it, so to make money off his work he has to offer it at conditions (price/convenience/quality) that are better than available alternatives where he doesn't make any money from and which will always exist whether he likes them or not.

Is it then alright for a private company to use work published under the GPL without giving back their changes?

This is a "restriction" granted by copyright law. You can't cherry pick.
post #41 of 92
If you read my original link, you read the analogy to reselling books.

If you applied the same principle for reselling/loaning digital media to books, it would make used book stores illegal. It would also be illegal to loan a book to someone. Libraries would also be illegal. Only books released for a particular region would be available in that region.

Do you see how horrible this would be (and actually is)!
post #42 of 92
darkphoenix22, I perfectly know copyright, but practical reality doesn't match the law anymore (it never did, but with internet the difference has become even greater).

From an artist's point of view it's pointless to argue about legal entitlement and morality when the effective enforcement of those laws is impossible and the laws are ignored by almost everyone (at least to some degree).

To make money you have to have a competitive offer based on the current reality, no copyright or DMCA laws can ever change that.

You should really read the article in the OP again since it says exactly this.
post #43 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkphoenix22 View Post

Is it then alright for a private company to use work published under the GPL without giving back their changes?

There are many companies who are doing just that, the difference is those companies can be sued while it's impractical and even more crucially counterproductive to sue consumers for sharing copyrighted media.
post #44 of 92
From the other thread:

We will add an authentication layer to the infinityOS automatic Bitorrenting to deter piracy. It will be the bare minimum to preserve copyright. It will consist of logging into a central server to get the PGP keys required to decrypt the content. The central authentication server will be later be decentralized.

This system is needed to get public broadcasting companies such as CBC and BBC to support "Open Internet TV". Many users had concerns that a bare distribution system would only promote piracy. This authentication system would alleviate these concerns.

This authentication layer would be implemented as a library or layer of glue used by MPlayer to decrypt the videos. It will use netpgp for the key generation and decryption. Other distributions would be free to build MPlayer with our code branch to support the authentication system.

-----

One of my good friends lives with a big TV producer in Toronto. I'm going to see if he can get me in direct contact with people at CBC, in about a month.
post #45 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterhead View Post

If you read my original link, you read the analogy to reselling books.

If you applied the same principle for reselling/loaning digital media to books, it would make used book stores illegal. It would also be illegal to loan a book to someone. Libraries would also be illegal. Only books released for a particular region would be available in that region.

Do you see how horrible this would be (and actually is)!

I don't why it isn't possible to just resell the key in my system. This would be, in effect, reselling your rights to your content.
post #46 of 92
Give it a go, it's very unlikely to be compelling and competitive enough to convince many people to use it, and therefore it won't keep the content mafia happy either since it doesn't generate much profit for them.
post #47 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by tux99 View Post

darkphoenix22, I perfectly know copyright, but practical reality doesn't match the law anymore (it never did, but with internet the difference has become even greater).

Then, copyright laws and their implementation needs to be adjusted to meet the needs of the people.

There is nothing inherently wrong with copyright.

-----

Quote:
Originally Posted by tux99 View Post

Give it a go, it's very unlikely to be compelling and competitive enough to convince many people to use it, and therefore it won't keep the content mafia happy either since it doesn't generate much profit for them.

It's mostly a replacement for services like iPlayer and Free-to-Air. The authentication mechanism will be optional.
post #48 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkphoenix22 View Post

I don't why it isn't possible to just resell the key in my system. This would be, in effect, reselling your rights to your content.

And what will convince anyone to buy the key if they can get the content for free?

You need to provide a compelling reason for the customer to go with your system, not just the content mafia!
post #49 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkphoenix22 View Post

Then, copyright laws and their implementation needs to be adjusted to meet the needs of the people.

There is nothing inherently wrong with copyright.

Agreed, but since the content mafia doesn't want that (they want just the opposite, i.e. make copyright more and more strict) and since they control governments, it won't happen in the near future.

Meanwhile artists need to make money so they have to adapt to the current reality whether they like it or not.
post #50 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by tux99 View Post

And what will convince anyone to buy the key if they can get the content for free?

You need to provide a compelling reason for the customer to go with your system, not just the content mafia!

Who says the content provided by my system won't be free in many cases?

The encryption isn't there to force you to pay, it's there to stop unauthorized redistribution. Most content produced by CBC and the BBC is funded by tax payers, so it will likely be free if you live in their broadcasting areas.

It would be trivial as well to add a system where you have to pay a "license fee" to get access to the content outside of its original broadcasting area.
post #51 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkphoenix22 View Post

Who says the content provided by my system won't be free in many cases?

The encryption isn't there to force you to pay, it's there to stop unauthorized redistribution. Most content produced by CBC and the BBC is funded by tax payers, so it will likely be free if you live in their broadcasting areas.

Fair enough, if the content is free, then the customer won't mind too much.
Although I still see potential privacy concerns if a central server has to give authorization. Also offline viewing might be a problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkphoenix22 View Post

It would be trivial as well to add a system where you have to pay a "license fee" to get access to the content outside of its original broadcasting area.

Again, what's the compelling reason for anyone to do that if they can get the content unrestricted from other sources?

In any case, your video streaming DRM system you are talking about is rather off topic here in this thread (I don't mind but waterhead might).
post #52 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by tux99 View Post

Fair enough, if the content is free, then the customer won't mind too much.
Although I still see potential privacy concerns if a central server has to give authorization. Also offline viewing might be a problem.

This is how iTunes, Netflix, Youtube, and XBox Live all work. The only exception is that we will own and control the means of encryption and access as it will be implemented via free and open software. We will also have control over how the authentication information is used.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tux99 View Post

Again, what's the compelling reason for anyone to do that if they can get the content unrestricted from other sources?

Because outside of the US, there usually aren't many. Even then, the quality is piss poor due to centralized bandwidth limitations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tux99 View Post

In any case, your video streaming DRM system you are talking about is rather off topic here in this thread (I don't mind but waterhead might).

Ya that's why I didn't bring up the entire system at first.
post #53 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkphoenix22 View Post

The problem is the DMCA not copyright.

The DMCA is not universal. It does not exist in my country (Canada) and most others. ....

Not for much longer...

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...lizes-dvrs.ars
post #54 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac The Knife View Post

Not for much longer...

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...lizes-dvrs.ars

Ya I'm doing my best to stop that. I'm encouraging my friends and family to write to their MPs and Tony Clement to voice their opinions.

I disagree with the Canadian DMCA because it limits my fair use right to break the digital locks if it is needed to access the content. Consumers should always have the right of fair use.

Consumers, however, ARE NOT entitled to the right of republication and unauthorized reproduction, unless otherwise given.
post #55 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by tux99 View Post

In any case, your video streaming DRM system you are talking about is rather off topic here in this thread (I don't mind but waterhead might).

Hey, you guys are the mega-posters, not me.

I read something that I know has had a lot of discussion in this forum. I just wanted to share it with you guys (and gals?). My job is done.

Go for it!
post #56 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkphoenix22 View Post

This is how iTunes, Netflix, Youtube, and XBox Live all work.

Youtube is neither encrypted nor authenticated. The only info youtube has about a user is the IP address (unless the user choses to register which is not required to watch content).

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkphoenix22 View Post

Because outside of the US, there usually aren't many. Even then, the quality is piss poor due to centralized bandwidth limitations.

P2P, usenet, rapishare, etc. are all available worldwide and have a wider offer of content than the systems you mention.

This is the competition any content mafia backed scheme has to measure up with, not Itunes, or similar restricted systems.
post #57 of 92
Well my goal, if anything, is to legitimize the use of Bitorrent and P2P in the eyes of content holders.
post #58 of 92
To give an example of what I mean, I like the idea of the following service:

http://www.wbshop.com/Digital-Downlo...efault,sc.html

I think providing old rare movies, that would be too expensive to release on DVD due to low demand, as downloads is a great idea.

WB has done 3 crucial mistakes though:

- the movies are mostly overpriced, they shouldn't cost more than 5 dollars at most

- they are DRM encrypted

- they are available only to US customers (despite technically they could be availble to the whole world)

I would bet that with a fairer price, a worldwide availability and no DRM, they would sell orders of magnitude more downloads and make a much bigger profit than they are currently doing with this.
post #59 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkphoenix22 View Post

Well my goal, if anything, is to legitimize the use of ********** and P2P in the eyes of content holders.

rapishare and usenet are legal in most countries.

In fact rapishare just won a law suit against them in Germany which confirms this.
post #60 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by tux99 View Post

To give an example of what I mean, I like the idea of the following service:

http://www.wbshop.com/Digital-Downlo...efault,sc.html

I think providing old rare movies, that would be too expensive to release on DVD due to low demand, as downloads is a great idea.

WB has done 3 crucial mistakes though:

- the movies are overpriced, they shouldn't cost more than 5 dollars at most

- they are DRM encrypted

- they are available only to US customers (despite technically they could be availble to the whole world)

I would bet that with a fairer price, a worldwide availability and no DRM, they would sell orders of magnituted more downloads and make a much bigger profit than they are currently doing with this.

The problem is an authentication mechanism will be required if P2P technology is used to distribute legit content.

It's much harder to prevent unauthorized reproduction on a distributed system than a centralized one.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HTPC - Linux Chat
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › HTPC - Linux Chat › DRM and eBooks