
Ian Hickson on content providers and the reason for DRM - squarelegs
https://plus.google.com/app/basic/stream/z13qtnxhuojytbjbr04ci3cowrmtehsy324
======
lucian1900
Link to regular Google+, not the obnoxious tiny-text basic one:
[https://plus.google.com/107429617152575897589/posts/iPmatxBY...](https://plus.google.com/107429617152575897589/posts/iPmatxBYuj2)

~~~
jrajav
I actually like it. It's not that readable to begin with, sure, but it's still
more content-friendly than the full, overloaded Google+ UI. And unlike the
full UI, you can zoom in and/or apply custom CSS (Try Safari's Reader), and
it's also friendlier to low-bandwidth, screen readers, etc.

I dunno, mostly playing devil's advocate here, but I think Google+ has some
issues as a competitor for traditional blogging that this low-tech version
highlights.

~~~
pasbesoin
Too bad the respective URL's don't appear to share common
substrings/identifiers.

------
mikecane
Culture is not created in silos. Culture is created by free exchange (which is
not to be confused with "no things should be paid for"). DRM is just a
speedbump on the road.

~~~
rayiner
Content is not just culture, it is also entertainment. Indeed, the kind of
content that is protected by DRM is mostly entertainment, and not very much
culture. There is no reason entertainment should be free nor is there really a
positive social value in making it free. What is the positive externality to
society from some kid being able to listen to the latest Nickelback album or
play the latest Gears of War game for free? Because handwaving about "culture"
aside, that's what we're really talking about here.

~~~
nitrogen
The discussion about culture in the context of DRM is far from "handwaving."
Culture and entertainment have always been intertwined; don't let high culture
snobs tell you otherwise.

~~~
pasbesoin
I agree. I think the GP is tackling an artificial construct / separation.

In fact, these days I think of much communication, including "entertainment",
as "cultural programming".

As such, it and its use (and citation, reuse, refactoring...) are central to
our lives and to society's development (or lack thereof).

~~~
rayiner
Yes, Gears of War is "central to our lives and to society's development."

The vast majority of the content protected by DRM is morally indistinguishable
from acts at a strip club--pure, base, entertainment. And I don't see many
people calling for those to be free, even though it costs a strip club owner
nothing to let extra people look in through the window (i.e. zero marginal
cost of reproduction).

~~~
pasbesoin
Have you noticed how... "mainstream" porn stars have become in the last decade
(at least, in U.S. society/media)?

Whether or not one agrees with a particular element, I think such influences
are significant.

And, to extent this point a bit further and perhaps offer a contrasting
viewpoint, for all the "objectification" of women that this prevalence may be
promoting -- and I'm not saying there aren't some fairly pernicious
influences, in this regard -- it also seems to be shaking off some of the
cultural taboos about speaking openly about sex.

The outcome of such influences is not simple.

And being able to dialog about them is essential to understanding them. Which
includes access that is not overly, artificially constrained. And which
includes citation and reuse within the arts, for example. As well, in
reporting, peer-to-peer (e.g. sharing game play videos), etc.

Once such influences have been released into culture, I don't agree with a
private party having an exclusive hand on the spigot to just turn off access
to and so informed conversation about such influences.

Reasonable compensation is one matter. Control of cultural dialog is another.

------
kefka
I know there have been gigabytes of text written about copyright and
restriction technologies/laws surrounding them. I think I will mention another
area which has not been discussed.

What is the US chief export? Machines and Electronic equipment(1). However,
one thing glaringly absent from that list is digital media (Music, movies,
programs). I would argue that digital media is one of the most important
exports, and this requires copyright to enforce effectively.

I can easily imagine that every device we sell could be reduced to very
effective 3d models (and circuit models, as well as code to use). In that end,
everything we would export is the information how to reproduce. We RepRappers
already freely trade and remix designs made by others. For us, a 50kB scad
file is more than enough to reproduce the next cool object.

I can understand the US stance towards copyright, although I heartily disagree
with them. Most of the industry requires a strong international copyright and
protections because somebody else could copy their designs and make it without
R&D cost.

(1) <http://www.worldsrichestcountries.com/top_us_exports.html>

~~~
naner
We create a lot of digital goods so we should convince other countries that
they are extremely valuable and must be made exclusive?

If I was a country who provided mostly goods and services I don't think I
would be so easily convinced.

~~~
danielweber
The bulk of new creation in the future is going to be in IP, not physical
goods. Most other countries have their _own_ IP that they want protected as
well.

It's true that developing nations (read: China) often don't respect other
countries' IP rights. The US didn't either when it was still young. But
eventually countries get out of that catch-up phase and start actually
inventing things of their own that they want protected.

------
RickHull
> _B. Columbia make a movie. Netflix buys the rights to distribute this movie
> from Columbia_

It's interesting that Columbia is treated as a plural subject while Netflix is
singular. I'm pretty sure it's a Britishism to treat a firm as plural, but why
doesn't Netflix get the same treatment? Earlier in the piece, Paramount gets
the plural treatment.

~~~
edent
At a guess, because the "ix" makes an "s" sound. So, in the writer's mind, it
sounds like a plural i.e. "Netflicks".

~~~
kaoD
That would make the opposite right.

    
    
      Columbia buys
      Netflicks buy

------
ky3
_The purpose of DRM is not to prevent copyright violations. The purpose of DRM
is to give content providers leverage against creators of playback devices._

The examples given paint a slightly different story.

The gist is that DRM is more a way to squeeze additional money out of those
willing to pay for content than to keep content out of reach from those
unwilling to pay.

Food for thought.

------
mkr-hn
Some creators have business modeled themselves into a corner that requires
control over the user's experience. That's unfortunate.

------
_pmf_
> The purpose of DRM is not to prevent copyright violations. > The purpose of
> DRM is to give content providers leverage against creators of playback
> devices.

The second is necessary because the first cannot be achieved directly.

~~~
yarrel
The second is not an indirect means of achieving the first.

