
To Lend is the Right of an Owner – That is, Not You. - jamesbritt
http://www.loper-os.org/?p=918
======
ridiculous_fish
As a huge fan of many big-budget TV shows and movies, I am not inclined to
gloat about the death of the content industry until there's a viable
replacement business model.

It's easy to criticize the content industry for their abusive practices and
outdated business model, and point to something like the direct sales
approach, which has had encouraging successes in books and music. But it's
wholly unproven on the budgetary scale of, say, Game of Thrones, Lost, or The
Avengers. And if content is distributed freely (through lending or otherwise),
then it may be that the creators cannot recoup their costs, and this content
simply won't be made.

It's possible that a Kickstarter-like model will emerge, but that's far from
guaranteed, and I observe that Kickstarter projects themselves operate on a
"scarcity emulator." For example, projects often provide artificially
exclusive digital content at certain funding levels.

It may come down to a conscious choice to accept some limitations on our
personal digital property rights in order to enable something we can all
enjoy. We make that same tradeoff in the meat world all the time: you cannot
block a river, sunlight, a view, a storm drain, etc. even though they're on
your property. I would prefer limiting my property rights to that content over
that content disappearing altogether.

Lastly, pirates are no allies of personal property rights. Pirates distribute
unambiguously stolen content (for example, the X-Men Origins workprint) just
as readily as merely copyrighted content.

~~~
asciilifeform
_> I am not inclined to gloat about the death of the content industry until
there's a viable replacement business model._

Some things simply have to die, and the earth where they stood salted
thoroughly, before any kind of viable replacement is even thinkable.

 _> the creators cannot recoup their costs, and this content simply won't be
made._

Guess what, "content" was made for thousands of years before anyone had any
notion of copyright. Creative people will continue to create.

 _> you cannot block a river, sunlight, a view, a storm drain, etc. even
though they're on your property._

The "content industry" as we know it is quite like the air merchant described
in PG's essay (<http://www.paulgraham.com/property.html>). DRM is quite like
someone blocking off the sun and then forcing you to buy back the light. Bits
are copyable at zero cost; the "air merchants" should be forced to simply suck
it up, instead of being allowed to tie everyone's hands in a vain attempt to
make water stop being wet.

------
chrisro
If the publishers continue down this road, we're closing in on ebooks becoming
time-based licenses to view content instead of things you "own."

~~~
wanderr
Frankly, I'd be perfectly fine with that if the costs were scaled down to
reflect the limited use. As it is I feel ebooks are largely overpriced given
how much less you can do with them than a dead tree book.

~~~
pasbesoin
And when you are no longer allowed to keep the version that reflects poorly on
some now powerful person?

Ownership isn't just a matter of objects and revenue. It is control of
information.

~~~
asciilifeform
Exactly. The content racketeers like to tar their opponents as "spoiled
children who want free w4r3z." But the fight is really about control over the
means of distribution; which translates into control over culture in general.

