- From: cobaco <cobaco@freemen.be>
- Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 12:44:09 +0200
- To: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
On 2013-10-17 16:25 David Singer wrote: > On Oct 17, 2013, at 15:38 , cobaco <cobaco@freemen.be> wrote: > >>> - one of those guys at a traffic stop that starts cleaning your windows > >>> unasked and then gets all outraged if you refuse to pay for the > >>> unrequested service > >> This is a completely false analogy. If you don't want to pay for the > >> content, no-one is forcing it on you. > > So If I make a copy of something, nobody is gonna try and stop me? Nobody > > is gonna have a problem with that? > > I bet that's news to all the people who got sued by the MPAA or their > > local equivalent > Are you seriously suggesting that someone washing your windows unasked, and > then trying to charge you, is in any way analogous to you stealing something > and then being sued for that theft? Copyright Piracy is in no way similar to theft it is instead similar to sharing ideas, or telling jokes/stories, or sharing knowledge Nina Paley is the one who made the fundamental difference most clear IMO (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4): .... Copying is not theft. If I copy yours you have it too One for me and one for you That's what copies can do If I steal your bicycle you have to take the bus, but if I just copy it there's one for each of us! .... I'm suggesting washing your windows unasked, and then trying to charge after the fact, is analogous to creating/doing someting unasked and then demanding payment for it after the fact which happens to be what the traditional content industry is using as a businessmodel for digital goods People want to reward artists, and consequently they mostly will choose paying over piracy. HOWEVER.... DRM makes customers jump through hoops to do so, consequently giving them an incentive not to pay (nobody likes being made to jump through hoops). > Much of your email imagines a fantasy world in which people who create > content are obliged to give it away free. That's not the world we live in. The definitions I gave are not fantasy, the logical conclusion that they are mutually incompatible isn't either Of the of list similarities between music and movies industries I gave in the previous e-mail, which if any do you think is fantasy? That list of similarities explains _why_ the proposed alternative is workable, just as it prooved to be with music. The alternative course is fantasy only in the sense that it isn't currently being done. As to being obliged to give it away for free, they're of course not, BUT the very fact of giving someone a digital good (for free or not) allows him/her to copy it. Just like telling someone a joke/story allows him/her to repeat it to someone else (either improving on it, butchering it, or leaving it as is) DRM at best obfuscates that ability, and then only as long as takes the first person to get past the obfuscation, after which a non-obfuscated copy will start circulating rendering the obfuscation pointless not just pointless but counterproductive . All it achieves copy-protection-wise is wasting effort. I understand that the industry doens't like the fact that DRM as copy- protection is counterproductive, and is trying its hardest to make that untrue, BUT that very much is the world we live in, not a fantasy. -- Cheers
Received on Monday, 21 October 2013 10:44:34 UTC