RE: The challenge of serving *EVERYONE* (was RE: Mozilla blog: DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users)

Bob Ham wrote:
> >
> > Interestingly enough, as a Canadian who previously worked for 15
> years
> > in the music industry, I have a well thought-through opinion there.
>
> > The Canadian Music industry is alive and well today, and has launched
> > the careers of many internationally recognized artists (ranging from
> > ... Justin Beiber
>
> You bastards! :-)

Ya, sorry about that one. Just goes to prove that annoying doesn't have a 
border.

>
> > However, I also support reasoned and reasonable "restrictions" to
> > unfettered actions, in part because I saw how it worked in the real
> > world, and the benefits outweighed the costs.
>
> OK, you believe DRM is good.  But do you believe it's good to give
> money to people who produce unencumbered content, rather than give it
> to people who produce DRM-encumbered content, all else being equal?

Hang on, I didn't say DRM is good: I did suggest that it seems reasonable to 
me as a business requirement. Whether or not I invested in a company or 
individual's creative output would not be decided based upon DRM usage: if 
they could succeed without DRM, I would celebrate their success. If their 
continued success relied upon some form of content protection, then I would 
want them to continue to succeed (especially if I had a financial stake in the 
outcome of success or failure). If that meant using a form of content 
protection (DRM) then that is the cost of doing business.

And I think this is one of the points the anti-DRM forces fail to address (if 
they even understand it) - the "content" being protected is the result of a 
financial investment not only of the individual artist(s), but of all of the 
supporting players that make up "the industry". Under what right do you or 
anyone else have the ability to say "If you want to share it over the web, you 
have to give up your claim of ownership, so that anyone can make as many 
copies of it as they want, and not pay you for it"?

>
> > I would much
> > rather see a Canadian video production company stay in business, then
> > to have to shut their door because the rampant theft and distribution
> > of their output so devalues their creative works that they cannot
> stay in business.
>
> Copyright infringement is a different concept to theft.  (Unless you're
> talking about theft of DVDs discs or something?)

Look, you can weasel word your way around the legal definitions of theft 
versus copyright "infringment", but the unauthorized copying of digital 
content to circumvent lawful pay-for-use is wrong, and is morally the same as 
stealing - at least in my books.

Whether you buy a book, a vinyl record, a CD or a digital download, you don't 
"own" the idea or the creative work, you own the right to use it as it was 
licensed to you, and in the case of a physical media, you own that hard good.

If you purchase a ticket to go see a movie in the theater, or to see a play, 
or a concert, you don't own any of that either: you paid for the experience, 
but the celluloid film remains the property of the theatre, the props and 
costumes remain the property of the theatre, and the instruments used in the 
concert remain the property of the musicians. If the play is still under 
copyright, then a part of the proceeds are forwarded on to the author of the 
play, and if the musicians perform a musical work that was composed by another 
artist, they pay a performance royalty to that artist. Just because you paid 
over a hundred bucks to see Bruce Springsteen live doesn't mean you know own a 
share in Born to Run. You own nothing.


>
> > For all the anti-DRM rhetoric in the world you can surface, if you
> > cannot protect the creators of entertainment content, and their
> > output, you will continue to fail in your cause.
>
> What do you believe "our" cause is exactly?

To cripple an aspect of the web based upon a philosophical, imagined 
higher-ground. To ensure the web is "free" as envisioned in one perspective, 
by removing the "freedom" to protect a creative work from unauthorized 
duplication and distribution.

The argument on this list and elsewhere is not (and never has been) about 
making a technology as good as it can be, and striving for better, even 
better, even better again; to benefit not only the end users, but ALSO the 
content creators - no, it has been about exerting control. That a block of end 
users can start to dictate terms to content creators over how the web can be 
used - they don't want to share the web with everyone, only with those who 
think like them. And, to paraphrase one of the anti-DRM advocates on this 
list, "...stick it to the Man."

The bottom line is, if you can come up with a method to protect the content 
creators need to control distribution and copying that doesn't involve "DRM" 
then do so. But until that time arrives, I believe working on a making the 
best DRM solution available to all is a laudable goal. Because, you see, I 
want the web to be open to everyone, including those who to date have gotten 
the wrong end of the deal, and those that wish to exert their right to control 
their creative works.

JF

Received on Monday, 19 May 2014 23:04:49 UTC