Hmmm... ok. It's a bit of a loaded use of the word (culture and copyright are both man-made and as natural/unnatural as each other) but I see what you mean, and I agree to a point. Extended copyright terms and the state of sampling in music for example are things I don't agree with.
I do think that copyright provides a mechanism to sell your creative output and I think that's a very good thing. I don't want my favourite artists to have to start selling t-shirts and going on world tours; I want them in the studio doing what they do best - and so far I haven't heard of a viable alternative solution that works for new emerging artists, established artists, record labels, etc who make up the wonderful wealth of culture that we enjoy - so my current standpoint is to support copyright (despite its many problems).
I don't get the "natural condition" and "natural state of culture" ideas. What do you mean by that? Natural in what sense?
I also don't think it's a question of how hard it is to copy something - it's about whether you have the right to copy something without permission and without paying the asking price.
Like I said before, think what you want about piracy - but don't think that your standpoint and 20 Tb of pirated copyright material is doing something to improve our cultural wealth - or that people who choose to pay for digital content are actually harming it.
Ok, you don't have to suggest an alternative to copyright, but then you have to accept that your moral code on "rejection of copyright" and thinking that people should be creating completely free content to entertain you is likely to result in a net loss for everyone. You seem fine with music/art/cinema/software companies becoming redundant (unless they adopt some new model - maybe selling hard drives to the people they continue to provide free content to!).
You haven't explained your justification for your wishes to do what you want with content to trump the wishes of the creators who want to sell that content for a price they set - and examples of ways in which copyright/drm has annoyed you in the past don't really cut the mustard.
It's up to you how you feel about pirating - but the fact that you have such a huge library of downloaded content suggests to me that it does have a value to you and your examples of times you've actually paid for content make me think that you would rather pay - but that leeching off of the existing system (however imperfect it may be) suits your pocket more - and so you've adjusted your argument around that.
You do have to provide an alternative if you're saying we're better off without copyright and if you're saying that abolishing copyright is likely to lead to the likes of hollywood collapsing, then you're admitting that copyright is serving its purpose in encouraging creation of content.
If you truly walked the walk in "rejecting" copyright than you would be able to have all the content you wanted from non-copyright sources (which of course any creator is free to license their work under).
I'm not saying for 1 second that copyright is anywhere near perfect - but you're denying it has any place whatsoever at the same time as gluttonously gorging yourself on the fruits provided under it and suggesting no alternative.
I've heard the one about scarcity - but I cannot accept that an album/movie/book/software that many hundreds (or thousands) of hours of work have gone into the creation of can have no cost at all due to the format on which it's held. Perhaps the economic "law" of scarcity is outdated for the digital age.
Sorry but it sounds to me like you've structured your argument around what suits you.
ps. I'm not a troll just because I'm not towing the anti-copyright line. My words are not meant to provoke or upset anyone. I just don't agree with you. Peace.
You want completely free and unrestricted access to your stuff but you will not extend that freedom to other people's stuff. What's yours is yours to do as you like with and what belongs to others you should also be able to do what you like with.
You're saying the jobs of the people who create content are redundant. "They can still create." but you don't offer an alternative solution to copyright to incentivise creation - to create those high-budget movies and games on your hard drives.
And you're saying DRM doesn't work but that the only copyright stuff you pay for is the stuff that's locked down with DRM (from Steam).
Oof @ "Since I've rejected copyright, I don't see anything wrong with copying those files for free."
You're collecting 20Tb of copyright files for free because you reject copyright. I think that's awful. Why don't you actually practice what you preach and stick to Creative Commons or other non-copyright movies?
You could very well be right on all of that I think. I guess I'm coming from a different perspective and thinking I'd be happier for it to just be implemented if it means easier access to legal content. I live in Germany and we're extremely limited as to what we can access here without proxys or illegal downloading.
btw, I didn't mean to brush off your post before. I re-read my reply and it sounded a bit like that. Wasn't what I meant.
Ok but they need to use the DRM to keep the content owners happy (which I can totally understand). A movie on iTunes to buy costs about the same as 1 month subscription to Netflix and you'd be able to grab all you wanted in that month. If Netflix adopted that stance with HTML5 as it is at the moment their providers would pull all of their content over night and they wouldn't have a business.
If there's nothing wrong with the way Netflix implement DRM via Silverlight and there's no way to currently implement a similar strategy in HTML5, why would it be wrong to include one?
I'm curious as to your reasoning because it sounds like you're coming from a different angle than "DRM is always bad" as per the OP. I do know, as a web developer, that doing even slightly secure streaming via HTML5 (without a browser plugin) is very difficult at the moment - and no Flash on iDevices and no Silverlight on Ubuntu - all a bit of a nightmare to work with. It's not Open Web.
That's all well and good, but it doesn't answer the question of how to provide a streaming service that doesn't quickly become a really-cheap downloading service.
I don't particularly see a problem with this - and it could actually be a path to more content being available on the interweb. If it's done right, what's the problem? Netflix and iTunes both use it and work fine for watching movies.
To say that everything should use open tech and that you should be able to right click on any streaming content and "save as..." isn't really realistic imo.
Re:
^^^ this
"(even more so in many foreign countries)"
Just to clarify what this means - customers in Germany are being charged the equivalent of $80 per month as opposed to customers in the US paying $50.
I don't really have any issues with them using DRM to be honest, but their international pricing is a joke.
excellent article
all good points.
Re:
I don't think there's any lack of articles about GEMA and their practices in German.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I know it's not a popular view here, but...
Hmmm... ok. It's a bit of a loaded use of the word (culture and copyright are both man-made and as natural/unnatural as each other) but I see what you mean, and I agree to a point. Extended copyright terms and the state of sampling in music for example are things I don't agree with.
I do think that copyright provides a mechanism to sell your creative output and I think that's a very good thing. I don't want my favourite artists to have to start selling t-shirts and going on world tours; I want them in the studio doing what they do best - and so far I haven't heard of a viable alternative solution that works for new emerging artists, established artists, record labels, etc who make up the wonderful wealth of culture that we enjoy - so my current standpoint is to support copyright (despite its many problems).
Anyway, been an interesting discussion... cheers.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I know it's not a popular view here, but...
I don't get the "natural condition" and "natural state of culture" ideas. What do you mean by that? Natural in what sense?
I also don't think it's a question of how hard it is to copy something - it's about whether you have the right to copy something without permission and without paying the asking price.
Like I said before, think what you want about piracy - but don't think that your standpoint and 20 Tb of pirated copyright material is doing something to improve our cultural wealth - or that people who choose to pay for digital content are actually harming it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I know it's not a popular view here, but...
Ok, you don't have to suggest an alternative to copyright, but then you have to accept that your moral code on "rejection of copyright" and thinking that people should be creating completely free content to entertain you is likely to result in a net loss for everyone. You seem fine with music/art/cinema/software companies becoming redundant (unless they adopt some new model - maybe selling hard drives to the people they continue to provide free content to!).
You haven't explained your justification for your wishes to do what you want with content to trump the wishes of the creators who want to sell that content for a price they set - and examples of ways in which copyright/drm has annoyed you in the past don't really cut the mustard.
It's up to you how you feel about pirating - but the fact that you have such a huge library of downloaded content suggests to me that it does have a value to you and your examples of times you've actually paid for content make me think that you would rather pay - but that leeching off of the existing system (however imperfect it may be) suits your pocket more - and so you've adjusted your argument around that.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I know it's not a popular view here, but...
You're argument is completely inconsistent.
You do have to provide an alternative if you're saying we're better off without copyright and if you're saying that abolishing copyright is likely to lead to the likes of hollywood collapsing, then you're admitting that copyright is serving its purpose in encouraging creation of content.
If you truly walked the walk in "rejecting" copyright than you would be able to have all the content you wanted from non-copyright sources (which of course any creator is free to license their work under).
I'm not saying for 1 second that copyright is anywhere near perfect - but you're denying it has any place whatsoever at the same time as gluttonously gorging yourself on the fruits provided under it and suggesting no alternative.
I've heard the one about scarcity - but I cannot accept that an album/movie/book/software that many hundreds (or thousands) of hours of work have gone into the creation of can have no cost at all due to the format on which it's held. Perhaps the economic "law" of scarcity is outdated for the digital age.
Sorry but it sounds to me like you've structured your argument around what suits you.
ps. I'm not a troll just because I'm not towing the anti-copyright line. My words are not meant to provoke or upset anyone. I just don't agree with you. Peace.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I know it's not a popular view here, but...
I'm sorry but your argument is full of holes.
You want completely free and unrestricted access to your stuff but you will not extend that freedom to other people's stuff. What's yours is yours to do as you like with and what belongs to others you should also be able to do what you like with.
You're saying the jobs of the people who create content are redundant. "They can still create." but you don't offer an alternative solution to copyright to incentivise creation - to create those high-budget movies and games on your hard drives.
And you're saying DRM doesn't work but that the only copyright stuff you pay for is the stuff that's locked down with DRM (from Steam).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I know it's not a popular view here, but...
So you want free access to content from artists who have no say at all in what you're allowed to do with the content?
What's your proposal for how these artists go about creating your next 20Tb of content?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I know it's not a popular view here, but...
Oof @ "Since I've rejected copyright, I don't see anything wrong with copying those files for free."
You're collecting 20Tb of copyright files for free because you reject copyright. I think that's awful. Why don't you actually practice what you preach and stick to Creative Commons or other non-copyright movies?
I'm going to go do something else now.
Re: Re: Re: Re: I know it's not a popular view here, but...
You could very well be right on all of that I think. I guess I'm coming from a different perspective and thinking I'd be happier for it to just be implemented if it means easier access to legal content. I live in Germany and we're extremely limited as to what we can access here without proxys or illegal downloading.
btw, I didn't mean to brush off your post before. I re-read my reply and it sounded a bit like that. Wasn't what I meant.
Re: Re: Re: Re: I know it's not a popular view here, but...
Very true.
There's a difference between capturing a stream and viewing the page source and doing a wget on the source file though.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I know it's not a popular view here, but...
Ok but they need to use the DRM to keep the content owners happy (which I can totally understand). A movie on iTunes to buy costs about the same as 1 month subscription to Netflix and you'd be able to grab all you wanted in that month. If Netflix adopted that stance with HTML5 as it is at the moment their providers would pull all of their content over night and they wouldn't have a business.
Where do you buy your MKVs from out of interest?
Re: Re: I know it's not a popular view here, but...
Ok.
If there's nothing wrong with the way Netflix implement DRM via Silverlight and there's no way to currently implement a similar strategy in HTML5, why would it be wrong to include one?
I'm curious as to your reasoning because it sounds like you're coming from a different angle than "DRM is always bad" as per the OP. I do know, as a web developer, that doing even slightly secure streaming via HTML5 (without a browser plugin) is very difficult at the moment - and no Flash on iDevices and no Silverlight on Ubuntu - all a bit of a nightmare to work with. It's not Open Web.
Re: Re: I know it's not a popular view here, but...
That's all well and good, but it doesn't answer the question of how to provide a streaming service that doesn't quickly become a really-cheap downloading service.
Re: Re: Re: I know it's not a popular view here, but...
Did it get resolved?
Re: Re: I know it's not a popular view here, but...
Don't blame Microsoft for not porting Silverlight to Ubuntu.
Blame Apple for killing Flash. =]
Re: Re: I know it's not a popular view here, but...
I guess it makes the content owners happier to not have their streaming content trivially easy to save.
It doesn't get into people's way, so nobody minds.
Everyone's a winner, non?
I know it's not a popular view here, but...
I don't particularly see a problem with this - and it could actually be a path to more content being available on the interweb. If it's done right, what's the problem? Netflix and iTunes both use it and work fine for watching movies.
To say that everything should use open tech and that you should be able to right click on any streaming content and "save as..." isn't really realistic imo.