Fwd: I strongly urge all supporters to reconsider the EME proposal. It is not in your best interests!

> Not quite. I think the web should support content distribution models other
> than those in which the user is granted full rights to do whatever they
> choose with the content after it has been downloaded. For example rental and
> subscription models. Right now, those who sell content without full rights
> require technical as well as legal restrictions on the customer.
>
In XXth century it would make a sense with material things like VHS
and similar, where only one copy was available at a time and if you
rent it, you don't own it during that time, but now, on internet,
everything that you transfer is not really transfered, but copied.
Rental and sale cost and actions are the same and only diference is
that with rental or subscription model is suposed that you delete it
later (or with DRM, it could be deleted automatically). The point is,
that's an artificial limitation, and that's the main root why it's a
no sense. You've copied it already when did the transfer! Why don't
you have the right to own it later? The distributor is not loosing
anything in the same way it would if I don't give back the VHS to
Blockbuster!

You can add some inherent Intelectual Property agreements to the
content, like don't share the file with your friends or on P2P, I
agree on that (although I don't share that opinion, but that's a
diferent discussion), but regarding to the container (the file), I
should have control over ALL that's on my computer RAM of harddisk,
and do whatever i feel is the better for me, also make so much backup
copies I want in local or on any number of computers, and view it in
any player, also ones I've coded myself if I want, without asking
permissions to anybody because it's some data that's in MY computer.


> It's a reality, as you noted above, that technical restrictions are required
> (by the content owners) for such content.
>
> Changing that reality is, indeed, a whole other debate (which I've pointed
> out a few times here).
>
I don't think so, Netflix is always capable to say 'no' (and your
customers with thank you for do it).


> The reason all users (web and app users too) have to bear these costs is
> because the producers of the content require them to, in exchange for
> viewing the content. The producers of the content have their own reasons for
> that, which you could debate with them. What I have a problem with is the
> idea that they are not entitled to attach (perfectly legal) conditions of
> their choosing to their product offer. Noone has to accept that offer.
>
Netflix is not forced to do it, too ;-)


> Often
> it is argued that the technical restrictions are wrong because the legal
> restrictions they enforce are also wrong in some way.
>
You've condensed the problem in just one phrase, thank you :-)



--
"Si quieres viajar alrededor del mundo y ser invitado a hablar en un
monton de sitios diferentes, simplemente escribe un sistema operativo
Unix."
– Linus Tordvals, creador del sistema operativo Linux


--
"Si quieres viajar alrededor del mundo y ser invitado a hablar en un
monton de sitios diferentes, simplemente escribe un sistema operativo
Unix."
– Linus Tordvals, creador del sistema operativo Linux

Received on Friday, 17 May 2013 21:46:19 UTC