Miscellaneous > Applications
DRM
Doctor V:
Something thats probably going to generate flames, DRM is something that seems to generate a lot of tension among open source advocates, I just want to play devil's advocate so I can hear new opinions about the issue. I don't really understand why DRM is seen as such a bad thing. DRM make is so AV files require digital licences to play them. So if a company works for months to generate a piece of media, decided on a fair price for it, and wants to make it available not only on CD, in theaters, or video stores, but on customers PCs as well, isn't that a good thing? That would be convenient for customers who might not want to leave their home, because of say, bad weather, or a physical handicap. If someone dosn't like it, there's no obligation to buy anything. Typically, the condidions being put on DRM protected material are so strict that customers are staying away. But it dosn't have to be that way, its quite possible for a company to use DRM in a way that give consumers a good degree of freedom over the media they download after they've paid for it. Perhaps a company could make a media with heavy restrictions that last a year after the initial release, but became free and open after that. DRM content can exist alongside free content perfectally well. Now I'm all against using draconian copyright laws to smash competition the way Lexmark did, or Adobe's poke at Elmscroft. I also think mandatory DRM tech into all digital devices is just plain crazy. I also think Fritz chips push the issue way beyond the limit, as DRM exists today and works fine without the hardware component. But I don't see why the current DRM is so bad, and would like to hear differing opinions.
:cool: V :confused:
psyjax:
I agree and disagree.
Yes, its great to be able to restrict media judiciously, vut like all things who gets to be the judge?
I make a DRM music file and sell it, I dunno, for a buck... but what's to stop me from gouging the shit outta the price, say 20 bucks. Say Im the only act in town, and you gotta buy my music.
Kinda the way printer companies gouge prices on ink, and even put smart-chips in cartriges to prevent you from refiling without a workaround. DRM is like communisim, in a perfect world it would work, but while greedy and unscrupilous folks like M$ and others are around, it won't be very friendly for long.
Expect to be forced into perpetual upgrade cycles, and Drakonian EULAs much more often.
billy_gates:
I think DRM is a good thing. The only thing I don't like is combined with the DMCA it is illegal to crack or break the license. My personal opinion is if you aren't smart enough to keep people from stealing your music then you should have it stolen. You shouldn't be protected from some stupid law.
Doctor V:
quote:Originally posted by psyjax: plain 'ol psyjax:
I agree and disagree.
Yes, its great to be able to restrict media judiciously, vut like all things who gets to be the judge?
I make a DRM music file and sell it, I dunno, for a buck... but what's to stop me from gouging the shit outta the price, say 20 bucks. Say Im the only act in town, and you gotta buy my music.
Kinda the way printer companies gouge prices on ink, and even put smart-chips in cartriges to prevent you from refiling without a workaround. DRM is like communisim, in a perfect world it would work, but while greedy and unscrupilous folks like M$ and others are around, it won't be very friendly for long.
Expect to be forced into perpetual upgrade cycles, and Drakonian EULAs much more often.
--- End quote ---
In response I'd like to say that if a company charges 20 bucks for an act, people won't buy it. They will move on to the act that costs only 5 bucks or so, and there will always be free content as well. In other words, as far as music and other entertainment goes, nobody is ever going to be the only act in town, especially not with online content. So if someone is going to charge alot of money for somthing, it had better be damn good. And if it is damn good, the company should only be expected to have some sort of price tag on it no matter what form its presented in. Its going to have a small price in the video store, and theatre. And if they want it available on line, cool. Charging 20 bucks for a CD online is outrageous, but charging 8 bucks for say a 2 hour concert with audio and video isn't bad at all IMHO.
Now I'd like to separate the Lexmark issue from DRM because I believe they are very different issues. Putting copyright protection on a toner cartridge to prevent refilling and granting oneself a de-facto monopoly on toners is pure BS, and any effort to break that copyright protection should be lauded. But thats an issue dealing with the creation of competing hard/software and the use of copyright protection to stop it. The sale of online content protected by DRM can exist even if companys are allowed to make printer cartridges compatible with Lexmark.
Some people will certainly try to use DRM to excert draconian controls over content, but not everyone will, and those who don't will probably see better sales than those who do. And that will act to balance DRM out.
Doctor V:
Again, I'd like to clairify:
DRM is a system used to encrypt content making it so that playback requires a digital licence. The licences can be sold for money, and they can be designed to allow or disallow a variety of activities, such as controlling the number of times a file can be played, or a time period that it can be played in, or whether or not it can be burned to a CD.
DMCA is a US copyright law. It is considered by most to be very contraversial. It makes breaking any copyright protection for any purpose very illegal. It is often used to prevent competition. It defines copyright so strictly that even free speech is put into question.
So I want to make sure to everyone that I am questioning as to whether or not the top one, DRM, is such a bad thing in itself. The second one, the DMCA, I am very strongly against.
V
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version