Slashdot Mirror


DRM Causes Piracy

igorsk recommends an essay by Eric Flint, editor at Baen Publishing and an author himself, over at Baen's online SF magazine, Baen Universe. In it Flint argues that, far from curbing piracy of copyrighted materials, DRM actually causes it. Quoting: "Electronic copyright infringement is something that can only become an 'economic epidemic' under certain conditions. Any one of the following: 1) The products they want... are hard to find, and thus valuable. 2) The products they want are high-priced, so there's a fair amount of money to be saved by stealing them. 3) The legal products come with so many added-on nuisances that the illegal version is better to begin with. Those are the three conditions that will create widespread electronic copyright infringement, especially in combination. Why? Because they're the same three general conditions that create all large-scale smuggling enterprises. And... Guess what? It's precisely those three conditions that DRM creates in the first place. So far from being an impediment to so-called 'online piracy,' it's DRM itself that keeps fueling it and driving it forward."

79 of 413 comments (clear)

  1. Sixth column of a series by Robotech_Master · · Score: 5, Informative

    Other editorials in the series include

    Column #1
    Column #2
    Column #3
    Column #4
    Column #5

    All of which are available in their entirety, despite the "1/3 to 1/2" thing.

    Good reading.

    --
    Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
    1. Re:Sixth column of a series by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have to strongly disagree with the premise of this article. DRM doesn't cause piracy; people do. Don't be daft. The basic presumption of any such article is "given the population as it is today". You and the media conglomerates could sit around all day wishing people had a greater sense of ethics, but they just fucking don't. This isn't a discussion of blame anyway; it's simply a discussion of cause and effect.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    2. Re:Sixth column of a series by loquacious+d · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But DRM radically reduces the value of legally-acquired media, while raising the value of pirated ones. Furthermore, I think there is a strong philosophical argument against the bare concept of DRM, as the rules it imposes restrict our actions to such a large degree as to remove our liberty as moral agents, preventing us from acting as moral agents at all.

      The first point is one of utility. Case in point: cleaning out my inbox today, I found a note from the iTunes store that the Good, the Bad and the Queen's album is only $8 for a limited time. I almost jumped at it, even clicked the "Buy this album..." button (I'm a big Albarn/Gorillaz fan), and then, filling in my password, I stopped to think. "This is only 128kbits," I thought to myself. "That sounds kinda chintzy on my headphones. I won't be able to send good tracks to my friends, or upload them to the poolhall jukebox at my school. I won't ever be able to play them on non-Apple DAPs without even more of a quality loss, or make them into ringtones for my friends' phones, or possibly be able to even listen to them at all once Apple gets over this DRM nonsense in 10 years. Shit, I don't even know if this album is any good, the free single was only so-so. I have food to buy. Huh."

      The problem with DRM'ed media, and this leads into my second point, is that you don't actually buy anything. If I buy a CD, or download an album off the internet, it is my property: I have the right to use it and abuse it, as far as my own system of morality allows. (For me this includes making mix CDs for my friends, emailing them hott traxx, dropping cool songs on my friends' iPods, playing on my radio shows, and all the uses I described above.) By restricting my use of the things I buy to a predefined set of "correct" actions, DRM removes my freedom to act as a moral agent.

      So I fired up Soulseek and—well, you know the rest of the story. I will happily agree that stealing the music is less moral than paying for it (though the profit split of $0.80 to Apple, $6.50 to the RIAA, and $0.70 to Damon Albarn seems a little off to me, as I would really like Damon Albarn to be as rich as he needs to be to keep making music—the people demand a new Gorillaz album!). But for the reasons above I think it's less immoral than what the RIAA and iTunes do to me when I buy into their DRM.

      That's my call, as a human being and a moral agent, and I should be free to make it. DRM restricts my freedom to a rigid set of rules, predetermined by a cartel of people completely removed from my life and reasons for action. We get the old saw: everything not compulsory is forbidden; everything not forbidden is compulsory. It destroys the possibility of agency, and in turn the possibility of any kind of moral action.

      I: just want to listen to music, where and how I want to. I'm happy to pay for it (and I do, more than I should), as long as my rights of property and agency are respected. They: want to destroy my personhood with an absolute and top-down system of "morality".

      Who's the bad guy?

    3. Re:Sixth column of a series by Firethorn · · Score: 2

      People cause piracy.

      I'm reminded of the foundation series here. A person is unpredictable, but as you get larger and larger groups, they get more predictable.

      Sure, people commit 'piracy' just like they do other crimes. Sure that's bad. But should I, as a business, not take any measures against theft because it's against the law and people shouldn't do that? No - to ensure my own profit margin I have to acknowledge human nature and take some steps to prevent theft.

      But how do you prevent electronic piracy? You can't, really. Therefore it's actually more profitable to bite the bullet and beat the pirates at their own game.

      It would take me more time to find an illegal copy of one of Baen's books than to go to webscripton.net and pay the $6 for the book. That's worth six minutes of work for me. I buy multiple books at once - I'm even better off. Not to mention the whole accuracy thing. The OCR process introduces many errors.

      Like he said, DRM hobbles legitimate e-books:
      1: More expensive than pirated versions(Can't really beat free, but oh well)
      2: Harder to get than pirated versions: Many books I read don't have e-book versions
      3: Harder to use than pirated versions: Pirate and Baen ebooks don't have keys and encryption to deal with. You can copy and paste text for debates. Don't need a special reader.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  2. indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Couple of weeks ago I bought a movie online, which turned out to be DRM infected so I could not play it under Linux. I had to use Windows and FairPlay stripped the DRM from it to access the AVI inside.

    Do you think I care this movie is now being copied by my friends?

    1. Re:indeed by unleashedgamers · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have close to some 500 CD's, I don't have a CD player so I load them on my computer. Of the last 30 CD's I have bought about 10 of them have had some DRM so I cant load them on my computer (linux) if they don't work on my computer they are useless to me Because I cant listen to them so I have given up on buying CD's and now download them of the internet, why should I buy the CD's if I cant use them? (Most of the CD's with the DRM did no say they had DRM on them so I don't want to gamble my money on if I can listen to music or not)

    2. Re:indeed by Goaway · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You "used Windows and FairPlay stripped the DRM from it to access the AVI inside"?

      There are no DRM'd formats with an "AVI inside". "FairPlay" is a DRM system used by Apple. It is certainly not a thing you can use to "strip the DRM from it and access the AVI inside" anything. There used to be a tool named "FairPlay", which worked on music files and not video files, and has long since been abandoned.

      So no, I do not think anybody cares that your imaginary friends are copying this imaginary file.

  3. Cigarettes and MP3s by Graphic_Content · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This article makes perfect sense on every aspect noted. This is exactly why MP3s are so heavily pirated. I must be honest though, I still purchase CDs when I find new music that I like, but I will never ever purchase MP3s with DRM protection.

  4. He's got it right... by dmayle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I bought XIII and had to pirate it to play it in my laptop (without the CD)

    I wanted to buy KT Tunstall's CD, but since I listen to my music on the computer, I had to pirate it (it's copy-protected)

    My wife and I have a collection of some 200 CD's, all of which are ripped to my computer, but we haven't bought a new CD in almost a year.

    There's a limit as to when we start pushing our customers too far, and they start to push back

  5. Sounds Familiar by cfvgcfvg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It sure sounds alot like the reversed cause and effect of the "War on Drugs" or "War on Terrorism". Will the government ever learn to back off and let the free market guide itself? And yes, I know the *AA's are the ones pushing for more laws and arrests, but they wouldn't be succeeding without the blessing of the government.

    1. Re:Sounds Familiar by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm puzzled, how would the market solve the war on terrorism?

    2. Re:Sounds Familiar by ajs318 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That was what I was thinking -- it's just the same as the War On Some Drugs. Although most recreational drugs theoretically should cost pennies per dose (poppies, cannabis, hallucinogenic mushrooms and cacti, coca and valerian all grow wild, and they're just the ones I can think off off the top of my head), the very fact that they are illegal introduces artificial scarcity and allows dealers to control prices. And such "legal" ways of getting high as there are, are a PITB. There are medicines you can buy from a pharmacy that will get you off your tits (e.g. Paramol {Paracetamol and Dihydrocodeine}; Benylin Chesty Coughs -- two drugs in one really, Original {Diphenhydramine} is a downer, Non-Drowsy {Guaifenesin} is a mild upper; Night Nurse {diphenhydramine, same ingredient as Benylin Original} and the perennial standby, Kaolin and Morphine mixture -- worth faking a tummy ache to be given a dose of) if you take enough of them, and of course there's booze ..... but getting p!$$&d really isn't quite the same thing. It's too dirty a "high". There are legal plant extracts but the reason that most of them haven't been banned is that they aren't really much cop (though Sida Cordifolia isn't bad ..... name's a bit off-putting if you speak French though).

      Most of the crime is created in response to the problem of illegality. Junkies steal to buy heroin because it's sold at vastly inflated prices by dealers, they daren't seek help for fear of dropping their mates in the s#!t, and anyway they're already criminals just for having a toot so what's a bit of thieving between friends? Tobacco is more addictive than heroin (to the extent you can compare an illegal drug with a legal one), yet smokers are generally law-abiding. Apart from the ones who are bleeding the National Health Service dry by buying tobacco abroad ..... we should send them to Belgium to get treated if they get cancer ..... but I digress.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    3. Re:Sounds Familiar by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The war on drugs is about ensuring that citizens are addicted to indigenous drugs, and that the profits are centrally controlled.

      That's why it's OK for Americans to be addicted to cigarettes and alcohol but not cocaine or crystal meth.

      Having everyone addicted to cocaine is a threat to national sovereignty.

      Having them addicted to meth is a threat to profits.

      The free market would have everyone buying cheap meth or homemade shine, or addicted to foreign produced coke.

      As it stands now, they're buying whiskey, cigarettes and cough syrup, which is just the way those on top like it.

      The war on terror, on the other hand, is easy to fix.

      Keep your military and your CIA at home, and there will be no terrorism.

      The terrorists are after vengence because they have been and continue to be systematically wronged. By Americans.

      Well, it might be too late now. I imagine there are a lot of orphaned children who aren't going to forget what was done to them.

      Yeah... come to think of it... I think you guys are fucked.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    4. Re:Sounds Familiar by Planesdragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The war on drugs is about ensuring that citizens are addicted to indigenous drugs, and that the profits are centrally controlled.

      Only if you count the war on cannabis as "the war on drugs." If you exclude that miscatagorized weed, you get almost exactly the purposes they say the War on Drugs is for.

      If it weren't for use if illegal drugs, Richard Pryor would still be able to perform and Kurt Cobain would likely still be alive.

    5. Re:Sounds Familiar by maxume · · Score: 4, Insightful

      FlySafe airlines would have to compete with FlyCheap airlines. Individuals could make their own choices about how much security they thought they needed in the air. A bunch of people would die, and FlyCheap's assets would be bought out by FlySafeEnough airlines.

      (what percentage of people interact with 'the war on terror' anywhere else?)

      It all depends on what value you assign to the lives of the various other people on the planet; if you use the apparent acceptable rate of car accident deaths(~1/10000 a year in the US), we are spending way too much on anti terror measures(the death rate due to terrorism is way lower than that for US citizens, even if you include 9/11 and soldiers dying in Iraq and so forth). Basically, the free market would ignore it and move on, much to the chagrin of the dead, but to the profit of the living.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:Sounds Familiar by arivanov · · Score: 2
      Keep your military and your CIA at home, and there will be no terrorism.

      Err... Not entirely correct.

      The sole mistake Americans make is by automatically assuming that "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". All other mistakes including sending the military and the CIA are a mere consequence of this one.

      Bin Laden was made out of nothing through the enemy of my enemy principle. He is not the only one jinn to be unbottled in this manner. Plenty of others.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    7. Re:Sounds Familiar by aonic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, there's plenty of locally-produced cocaine. You know that coca-cola stuff you drink on your 36-hour coding binges? The cocaine was extracted from the coca leaves before the leaves were used to make that. Under the watchful eye of the FDA, of course.

      Cocaine is illegal because it is ridiculously addictive and can immediately cause heart attacks (much worse than nicotine, which is ridiculously addictive but mildly cancer-causing). There's no grand conspiracy to keep you addicted to "local" drugs but not "foreign" ones.

      Personally I believe that you should be able to do whatever you want in your own home, but the FDA thinks otherwise.

    8. Re:Sounds Familiar by russotto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      DRM -- originally called copy protection -- was created by the market. And it mostly died in the market. It took the DMCA to make DRM look viable again.

    9. Re:Sounds Familiar by britneys+9th+husband · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is, when FlyCheap Airlines has one of its planes hijacked and flown into a skyscraper somewhere, that's a negative externality. The people in the building never got to choose how much security they needed. Should we allow the CheapNukes Power Plant to store nuclear materials in an unlocked building on the side of the road?

      --
      Hear recorded Slashdot headlines on your phone! New service beta testing. Just call (248) 434-5508
  6. Re:Commodification by Quantam · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No. Bad analogy. Sexuality is simple evolutionary psychology. Given enough females, a male could produce perhaps 150 children a year, while a female could at most produce 1 (assuming no twins or other such anomalies). But for men to pass on their genes they require women. Thus, female sexuality IS a scarce commodity; there's nothing artificial about it.

    --
    You have tried to support your argument with faulty reasoning! Go directly to jail; do not pass Go, do not collect $200!
  7. If only the UK goverment realised this. by Xest · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Honestly, the response to the recent petition to the UK goverment to ban DRM almost sounded like it was produced for the goverment by the RIAA and Macrovision combined. The response in full:

    Digital rights issues have been gaining increasing prominence as innovation accelerates, more and more digital media products and services come onto the market and the consumer wants to get access to digital content over different platforms. Many content providers have been embedding access and management tools to protect their rights and, for example, prevent illegal copying. We believe that they should be able to continue to protect their content in this way. However, DRM does not only act as a policeman through technical protection measures, it also enables content companies to offer the consumer unprecedented choice in terms of how they consume content, and the corresponding price they wish to pay.

    It is clear though that the needs and rights of consumers must also be carefully safeguarded. It is reasonable for consumers to be informed what is actually being offered for sale, for example, and how and where the purchaser will be able to use the product, and any restrictions applied. While there is good reason to expect the market to reach a balance as these new markets develop, it is important that consumers' interests are maintained in the meantime.

    Apart from the APIG (All Party Internet Group) report on DRM referred to in your petition, Digital Rights issues are an important component in other major HMG review strands on Intellectual Property, New Media and the Creative Economy. In particular, the independent Gowers Review of Intellectual Property commissioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, published its report on 6th December 2006 as part of the Chancellor's Pre-Budget Report. Recommendations include introducing a limited private copying exception by 2008 for format shifting for works published after the date that the law comes into effect. There should be no accompanying levies for consumers. Also making it easier for users to file notice of complaints procedures relating to Digital Rights Management tools by providing an accessible web interface on the Patent Office website by 2008 and that DTI should investigate the possibility of providing consumer guidance on DRM systems through a labelling convention without imposing unnecessary regulatory burdens.

  8. Isn't that what they want? by ViX44 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Step 1: Complain about drop-in-the-ocean piracy for a decade.
    Step 2: Get DMCA on your side so you can make a criminal out of anyone at will.
    Step 3: Sell defective products. When people are compelled to pirate on a larger scale because the Disney DVD they rented for the kids keeps fading in and out visually and audiably, or skips and dies on a particular scene...
    Step 4: Point at all the new, higher piracy figures and dance around singing about how the piracy problem is getting worse and how you need more DRM power.
    Step 5: Wait for the sheep to get used to the new order.

    Fortunately, it's unlikely this will work. Look at DVD advertisements. I recently popped in Joe's Apartment (it was free and I like bad films) and there was not trailers, commercials, or even a stop at the menu screen. Straight to reel one. A short while back I was watching a new release (I forget the title) and it was telling me all about how the new HD-DVD (or Blueray, I wasn't paying much attention) is going to be worth buying new hardware at shocking prices because the disc will play the film immediately. ...apparently the ads and menu page were snuck into the DVD ISO standard when we were sleeping.

    Thus, the cycle is complete; the studios received just enough annoyed customer complaints about the previews, ads, and intro garbage that they started making them skipable, or at least fastforwardable, and now they're going to temporarily give us immediate play back. Aren't we loved?

    Frankly, I don't think it's really the ads that ticked people off -- we've been tolerating them since '46. It's the fact that no one who pushes a button on a remote control wants to see a red X or Ø appear. They want action.

    1. Re:Isn't that what they want? by ViX44 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I've worked part-time in a video store, so I watch films, new disks and old, frequently. Trends I've noticed include:

        Fade-in/fade-out. Seems to be a decendant of the old Macrovision system. I've seen it happen a few times, notably when I popped The Fox and the Hound (not the most recent issue) in the store's DVD player. I've run other films, Disney and otherwise, that played properly. Amongst customers, I've received multiple independent complaints of the fading problem specifically on academy (4:3) aspect discs -- they try the widescreen and it plays normally, so this may be a move to extinct academy.
        Glitched chapters. I bought my father Dances with Wolves -- the complete cut with the pretty box -- but he said it wouldn't play correctly, getting stuck or glitching in particular scenes. I ran it on my computer and there it too glitched and faulted. Both my father's player and the DVD drive I used were Sony, so let the conspiracy theories abound. Physical damage can cause read errors of course, but DwW was bad out of the box. I've handled similar complaints at work. Even if a disk isn't brand new and has hairline scratches, that isn't enough to cause catastrophic playback errors, when I've seen perfect playback from disks that look like they were used for air hockey.

      As for worn discs, my store's policy is if a disc receives two complaints it's pulled, but for old fims that we rent off for free 80% of the time anyway, there is no replacement of the title. New films we'll give the customer a different disc of the same title, but if that fails as well, and often it does, there's not much we can do about it since the whole run doesn't work in particular players.

    2. Re:Isn't that what they want? by cptgrudge · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's the fact that no one who pushes a button on a remote control wants to see a red X or Ø appear. They want action.

      So true. So very true. Whenever I see that, I feel this icky, semi-irrational anger at the device that dares defy me, when I know that it is an artificial block to keep me watching a preview or whatever. My anger is partly directed at the device, partly at the manufacturer, and partly at the movie studio that made the movie.

      It's frustrating because I can't actually do anything about it to effect a change. If I stop buying movies made by that particular studio, they'll have no idea why. They may figure that people dislike their movies, they may figure that piracy is hurting sales, or they may come up with with some other reason except the real one, because my reason is beyond what they think will cause consumers grief enough to stop buying.

      Instead, they market the "removal" of the irritant as a "feature" of a new format and continue to keep me from convenient device shifting. This is BULLSHIT. I'm done with it, so take note, movie industry players, hardware and content alike. I will never buy one of the new format discs. I'll rent and rip, from Blockbuster or Netflix or whatever. My home media server is the end of the line for them. A post-DVD format disc will never be bought, let alone a dedicated player for the TV. They lose. I'll build a petabyte RAID array to dump ripped movies before I pay them another dime.

      They give me an non-DRM alternative that I can download, and I'll return to being a paying customer.

      --
      Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
    3. Re:Isn't that what they want? by StrongAxe · · Score: 2, Funny

      You forgot the (totally appropriate in this case) cliche:

      Step 6: Profit!

    4. Re:Isn't that what they want? by Dirtside · · Score: 2, Interesting

      they'll have no idea why


      Get off your ass and write them a letter. A real, honest-to-Godzilla ink-on-paper letter (feel free to write it on the computer and print it out, but whatever). Corporations pay orders of mangnitude more attention to paper letters than they do to email, for example.

      Your one letter isn't likely to change anything by itself, and short of orchestrating a boycott and associated letter-writing campaign, it's the most you can do individually. But if enough people stop buying DVDs because of the stupid X, and tell the studios about it, they will change. It's not enough to hurt their bottom line; and you can't keep buying and bitch at them, because they'll ignore you. Vote with your wallet and tell them why.
      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
  9. Re:Nonsense by flyingfsck · · Score: 5, Informative

    Many Baen books are available on-line for free. They found that whenever they relesae a free book, sales of all books of that author increase and the sales of the free book takes off. The fact is that people like the value of a real book, while the online version gives them a chance to read some books in a series and evaluate the author.

    So whether it makes sense or not is moot. Baen proved that free books increase sales enormously.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  10. Re:Nonsense by El+Cubano · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1) Legal content can be easily found online.

    Only if you use their choice of OS, their choice of browser, their choice of media player, their choice of hardware, etc.

    2) DRM-protected content is cheap - cheaper than their physical equivalents.

    I'm not to familiar with music, but ebooks sure don't follow this. I've often seen paper books for $60 and their electronic equivalents for $50. Only $10? I don't think so. Publishers claim that the majority of the cost of a book is printing, binding and shipping. All of those costs are gone with ebooks. Now you have server costs (much smaller than distribution costs for real books). So, it may cost slightly less, but is certainly not cheaper considering what you are giving up. Of course, you still have to be using their choice of software (OS, reader, etc), as few outfits provide unencumbered ebooks in PDF format or something.

    3) Users who know what to expect will not be dissappointed. I know I am a happy iTunes + iPod user. Then again I do not spend my time inventing all sorts of scenarios how this model could be limiting my life when it is not.

    Users expect to be able to use and move their stuff around. That is sadly not always possible. iTunes may be the exception, but I don't know not having used it personally.

  11. Re:If DRM causes piracy... by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If there is no DRM, would people all of a sudden decide to go buy stuff instead of pirating it? Doesn't seem very likely to me.


          And of course, you're completely mistaken. I remember back when PC's were brand new, in the late 70's - every single one of us had a pirated copy of Microsoft's "Flight Simulator" program. Guess what - enough people actually paid for it (it was a good program!), and Microsoft continued to push out new versions. The Flight Simulator division at MS is still alive and well today - despite all the piracy.

          Your gut feeling flies into the face of the actual facts. But this is what we've been saying all along - "piracy actualy PROMOTES sales"...

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  12. Laws == Crime by sinistre · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The more laws you have - the more crime you'll see.

    1. Re:Laws == Crime by GiovanniZero · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If only we had no laws there could be no crime! Then wouldn't we be happy! Sure murders, assaults and rapes would go unpunished. But that's because there is nothing to punish because they're not crimes!

      --
      Mod me up, mod me down, do your worst you modding clown.
    2. Re:Laws == Crime by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, but when you start having vast quantities of unnecessary or harmful laws on the books, you will see more "crime", although it's crime that is crime in name only.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    3. Re:Laws == Crime by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure murders, assaults and rapes would go unpunished.

            I guarantee you that they would not go unpunished. The punishment in an anarchistic society could even be rather extreme. I'd kill you, and your entire family. Who would stop me?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  13. dvds by Pompatus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's true for me that the quality of downloaded movies is better than the dvd I can rent at blockbuster. I couldn't beleive all the CRAP that goes on DVDs now. It was an inconvenience before that I had to click play a couple of times through menus to watch the movie, but now there are COMMERCIALS!!! WTF!!! Scroll through a list of movies, double click on a file and have the movie start, vs keeping track of disks (I wont even mention scratched disks), navigating through menu systems, watching 10 minutes of commercials and previews I dont care about. Hmmm. Tough choice.

    --

    ----
    Squirrel ... It's not just for breakfast anymore
    1. Re:dvds by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My local theaters have been doing that for years. At first they'd show a half hour of crap, so people just began to show up half an hour after showtime. Now they may do fifteen minutes, they may show up to fifty-five minutes (I sat through almost an hour of local car dealerships, florists and fast-food restaurants begging me for business.) Really torques me into a pretzel. Let me tell you, the back row of seats has gotten much more popular recently (if you've got to wait an hour you might as well enjoy yourself, I guess.)

      It's also reduced the amount of money I spend on tickets to about ten percent of what it used to be. I mean, if I know, in advance, that no matter how good the movie I'm going to be frustrated and annoyed by the time it starts I have to think twice about going. So now we find other ways to entertain ourselves on an evening out. I hear studio execs complaining about theater revenue every so often: my advice to them would be a. produce more films worth the admission price and b. skip the goddamn commercials. Nobody likes commercials, especially after we paid to view your product! That's just sleazy, any way you slice it. I register the same complaint about cable TV, which is why I don't have it.

      Yes, I know that the theater owners have their own sob story, about how the studios and distribution companies have squeezed all the profit out of theater operation so they have to subsidize their businesses with advertising. Now that may be, but conversely I am under no obligation to support what has become a disappointing experience.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  14. Re:Nonsense by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 2, Insightful
    2) DRM-protected content is cheap - cheaper than their physical equivalents.


    Weren't you listening??? DRM protected content is much less useful than the physical equivalent. To some people it's worth nothing at all since they can't play it on their own preferred music player. So they look for content they actually use.


    And while the music industry has yet to lose a sale from me because of illegal downloading, they're not producing much I want to hear these days either. Hip-Hop, and Rap Music (an oxymoron if there ever was one) are not on my playlists. The Beatles are, but they can't be bought on-line yet.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  15. Must agree here. by SharpFang · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I got some coupons for free mp3 that came with chips I buy on regular basis. Big campaing, "free, legal MP3".
    So I decided to "cash them in". So I login to the site described on the coupon. "Sorry, but this site requires Internet Explorer 6 or higher".
    Then registration process, asking me for granny's dog's name and so on. Then confirmation email. Then it tells me to download their player. Then the files which are not MP3 but some of their own DRM'd format. And of course unplayable in anything but their crappy player. No way to use them in a portable mp3 player, no easy way of burning them to a CD (outside of ripping audio mixer channel) and of course no way of playing them on another computer, even with said player installed (need login). Ah, and no playback without network connection.

    Thanks, no "Legal MP3", even for free, please.

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  16. Re:Isn't that what they want? Not Quite! by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Frankly, I don't think it's really the ads that ticked people off -

    Not so fast here. The ads may not have ticked you off the first time you played the disc. But what about the second time? After all, nobody buys a DVD to only play once.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  17. Re:Commodification by Serious+Callers+Only · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The MAFIAA, come to think of it, reminds me of a gaggle of wives obfuscating their pudenda;Isn't it commodification, after all, that the industry-Yids fear?


    Only on Slashdot would this kind of tripe be regarded as 'Insightful'.

    To the original poster - please explain to us how you 'decommoditize' sexual organs (are yours commodities too, assuming you have some?), and who the industry-Yids are, and what you mean by Yid? ?

    To those who modded it insightful, I have to wonder what possible nugget of truth you feel could be hidden in this anti-semitic rant which seems to regard all females (and particularly wives?) as commodities??
  18. Baen Books has always gotten this: by seebs · · Score: 2, Insightful
    http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/web/library/ us-cranky19.html

    Jim Baen kindly responded to my email asking him why they'd selected open standards and formats: "Because not only are our readers, in the main, not thieves, but because there is nothing there that is stealable." His point is an interesting one: there's not much point in stealing paperback books -- they are pretty cheap -- and you couldn't print out the text for less than it would cost to buy the book. The only people who could possibly be "stealing" are the ones who, for whatever reason, end up not wanting the books and they wouldn't have bought the books anyway.


    Jim Baen died last summer, but Baen Books still gives away a huge number of books in completely unencrypted, un-DRM'd formats. I think I have bought well over $100 of their buyable e-books, because I can read them on anything I want, any time I want.
    --
    My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
  19. Re:Mostly rubbish by Robotech_Master · · Score: 3, Informative

    Most "rare" materials aren't available in DRM form. What causes the copyright infringement isn't the DRM but the fact that you can't get it at all. If they're available with DRM, then the supply is large: just go pay for it and download it.
    That's part of Flint's point. If there's no ebook version of it at all, a for-sale DRM-free ebook version of it is so "rare" as to be unavailable. But if it's available with DRM, then a for-sale DRM-free ebook version of it--which is, again, what people want--is also so rare as to be unavailable.

    If I'm looking for an apple, and you offer me a cart full of oranges and say, "See, there's plenty of fruit," it's still not going to satisfy my desire for an apple.

    What is DRMed and also "high-priced"? Songs are a buck on iTunes. Movies are twenty bucks on DVD. It may be more than you want to pay but it's not a vast amount of money.
    Songs are the exception, and that's mainly because Steve Jobs bullied the music companies into going with the 99 cent price point. You can bet they'd raise the prices if they could. And even Steve Jobs doesn't like DRM any longer; neither does Bill Gates.

    But look at some of the books on eReader. For instance, A March into Darkness by Robert Newcomb. $17.95 for the DRM'd ebook at eReader, $17.79 for the unprotected hardcover at Amazon. Granted, this probably isn't the best example because the list price for the hardcover is actually $26, and you can knock 10% off the eReader price by using their newsletter discount code, but it only took me two minutes of searching to find it. If I wanted to look longer, I could probably find a lot more egregious examples. And anyway, with Baen able to sell their ebooks profitably for $5 or less each without killing print book sales, even of their hardcovers, there's no earthly reason an ebook should cost $10, let alone $18, apart from the dual evils of pricey DRM (do you know how much eReader charges for their ebook services? People I know who've checked on it say it's quite a lot) and publishers not wanting ebooks to "cannibalize" print sales.
    --
    Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
  20. However by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have bad news for the author: information still wants to be free

    "There are some people out there, possessed by the firm delusion that "information wants to be free"--as if bits of data had legs and went walking about on their own..."

    This is a strawman, and dumb. The contention that "information wants to be free" is a catchy way of saying "the properties of digital goods are such that their natural marginal cost is zero or practically indistinguishable from zero."

    Bad news for most people who would like to marginalize/otherwise dismiss the free culture argument: the economic basis for the contention that "information wants to be free" is rock solid. Scientific. To escape it you have to resort to name-calling etc., as here.

    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
    1. Re:However by Kadin2048 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bad news for most people who would like to marginalize/otherwise dismiss the free culture argument: the economic basis for the contention that "information wants to be free" is rock solid. Scientific. To escape it you have to resort to name-calling etc., as here.

      Moreover, there is an information-theory perspective as well, involving the inherent nonconservative nature of information in its most basic forms. Digitization brings "information" closer to that basic form, by detaching it more thoroughly from physical media (books, tapes, etc.) and allows its basic attributes to come forward.

      There's nothing you can do to put that genie back in the bottle.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    2. Re:However by Have+Blue · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There's one important fact that the free culture argument tends to neglect. Sure, a copy of a movie costs effectively zero. But the original has a cost that's decidedly nonzero. Information doesn't grow on trees, it takes energy to set it in a meaningful pattern that enables all those free copies.

    3. Re:However by DRJlaw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The contention that "information wants to be free" is a catchy way of saying "the properties of digital goods are such that their natural marginal cost is zero or practically indistinguishable from zero."

      The contention that information wants to be free is a catchy way of ignoring that "the properties of digital goods are such that their natural startup cost is non-zero for any information which is concise, categorized, and subject to quality assurance/quality control."

      You can argue about marginal costs of reproduction until the end of time, but the information that people want to acquire is scarce, costly (in the sense that finite human labor is a necessary element of its creation and rendering into a useful form), and most importantly, at least in modern economies, rivalrous. Vast stores of old information are discarded in favor of "superior" new information, at least in part because consumption of information still entails an opportunity cost to the consumer.

      To those who selectively quote the marginal cost pricing aspect of economics that they learned in their survey course, I suggest that you review the vast body of literature discussing the so-called "hot news doctrine" in law and economics. You could start here.

    4. Re:However by bit01 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it takes energy to set it in a meaningful pattern that enables all those free copies.

      And that energy, when amortized over 6,578,462,507 people approaches zero, a fact that copyright fanatics like to ignore.

      With copyright law as it currently stands the cost of pretty much any mass market information is orders of magnitude higher than the cost of production. In other words, highly inefficient production with massive losses in marketing, controlling distribution and policing.

      I don't know what the complete answer is but I do know that the people who claim that copyright law as it is currently implemented is the only possible way information creators can benefit are fanatics, very likely entrenched interests and middlemen who know full well that they add no value. Parasites in other words.

      Intellectual property law is a pure product of the mind and can be anything that we want it to be. Even something as simple as discussing what the correct copyright period should be, right down to zero, should be discussed and scientifically justified rather than the hand waving like "nobody will create without copyright" (that's nonsense) or "copyright is the only option" (that's also nonsense).

      ---

      Like software, intellectual property law is a product of the mind, and can be anything we want it to be. Let's get it right.

    5. Re:However by Yartrebo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And why is copyright automatically trotted out as the best way of getting it paid for?

      Copyright is extremely inefficient. It deters other innovation (generally by smaller and more creative people and firms) by making borrowing material very hard. Copyright sends many times (about 10x) more money to middlemen (CEOs, advertising, lawyers, trade groups, profits, retailers, etc) than to production. Copyright also leads to monopolies and censorship - both commercial and government. Copyright also leads to more advertising by restricting alternative distribution (compare TV via P2P and over the air), and advertising is a terrible way to raise money for anything.

      Just about any other system, including having a free-for-all, is going to work better than the current system.

    6. Re:However by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know what the complete answer is but I do know that the people who claim that copyright law as it is currently implemented is the only possible way information creators can benefit are fanatics, very likely entrenched interests and middlemen who know full well that they add no value. Parasites in other words.

      Your arbitrary generalisation is unwarranted.

      I'm sure there may be alternatives to copyright that have better results, but the favoured alternative of many -- piracy -- is not one of them.

      Moreover, there are different justifications for copyright. I discussed this with several friends and colleagues prior to submitting my comments to our government's review on the subject a few months ago. The comments in favour ranged everywhere from purely economic arguments (copyright as incentive to produce and distribute new works) to ethical/academic mindset ones (copyright as fair recognition of authorship, or the question of whether someone should ever be able to profit off the back of someone else's work without compensating them). Many of the people expressing these views were just average people, who might have had incidental benefits from copyright in some cases, but certainly not people who made money off the work of others by taking advantage of the system.

      Intellectual property law is a pure product of the mind and can be anything that we want it to be.

      All laws are the product of the mind. The natural order of things is that if I'm bigger and stronger than you, better armed than you, or in a larger gang than you, I get my way. Fortunately today's societies typically recognise that the "might is right" argument is not the most beneficial way for people to work together, and thus legal systems are born where hopefully the largest "gang" is society as a whole, and the weight of the legal system overcomes any individuals who like to throw their weight around.

      To give a specific example, the law of property ownership is a product of the mind. The natural state of things is that if I see something and it isn't tied down or guarded, it is mine if I want to take it. I always find it odd that people trot out the same tired arguments about how "intellectual property" and "real property" aren't at all the same thing, when in fact they are more similar than different. Both are artificial concepts created by the law. The consequences of taking someone else's property are different in the two cases of course, but they are not zero in either case.

      Even something as simple as discussing what the correct copyright period should be, right down to zero, should be discussed and scientifically justified rather than the hand waving like "nobody will create without copyright" (that's nonsense) or "copyright is the only option" (that's also nonsense).

      And tell me, how are you "scientifically" going to justify a "correct" copyright period? Different people have different views on the ethicality of copyright protection and on the economic benefits, and there is no one universal justification for having the concept in the first place. How therefore you can you have a single test for what is "correct"? (Please don't bother with any reply involving the US Constitution. Copyright is an international concept with far wider implications than US-specific laws.)

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    7. Re:However by StrongAxe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And that energy, when amortized over 6,578,462,507 [census.gov] people approaches zero, a fact that copyright fanatics like to ignore.

      So, next time you want to make a $6 million dollar movie, you can distribute it for free as long as you can get everyone on the planet to mail you 1/10 of a cent up front to help you produce it. Good luck with that.

    8. Re:However by Bert64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I would differentiate between intellectual property and property, because when someone takes your property you are deprived of it.
      In the natural order of things, someone would need to physically take your property and deprive you of it, yet you can share intellectual property with as many people as you wish and still retain it yourself. Education is fundamental to society, and keeping information (which is all intellectual property really is) secret is detrimental to society as a whole... Imagine if the caveman who discovered fire hadn't told anyone else how to do it?
      Societies and the human race have prospered and advanced due to sharing information, but that continued advancement is slowed by the greedy few who want to keep information secret for their own benefit at the cost of society as a whole.

      As for scientifically justifying a copyright period, i would imagine by studying the relative pros and cons of each length of time, although it's very subjective depending on what information is being copyrighted.

      About profiting off the back of someone else's work... What do you call fair compensation? Many large companies generate huge profits from people's works, while giving those people a miniscule cut. Also, do you think someone should be able to continue making ridiculous profits indefinately? Surely there's a point where it's no longer fair compensation, and now they;re just ripping people off.

      Whatever system is used, it should be more consumer-friendly than the current copyright laws... The current laws allow copyright holders to charge anything they want, continue doing so for ridiculously long periods of time, and both restrict supply and discriminate as to who is allowed to buy copies and what they pay. (and yes, i consider media which costs far more in europe and comes out several months after the us to be racial discrimination)

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    9. Re:However by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To give a specific example, the law of property ownership is a product of the mind. The natural state of things is that if I see something and it isn't tied down or guarded, it is mine if I want to take it. I always find it odd that people trot out the same tired arguments about how "intellectual property" and "real property" aren't at all the same thing, when in fact they are more similar than different. Both are artificial concepts created by the law. The consequences of taking someone else's property are different in the two cases of course, but they are not zero in either case.

      First of all, trying to discredit the argument with an emotional appeal (i.e., calling it "tired") is a fallacy.

      Second, you're missing the point. "Real property" and "intellectual property" are different, and here's why:

      Imagine I'm holding a rock. The physical reality of the fact that I'm holding (i.e., owning) it prevents anyone else from holding (i.e., owning) it at the same time. Moreover, I can use that piece of property without having to give it to anyone else first (for example, I can tie it to the end of a stick and go kill an antelope with it). Moreover, I can only use it if I haven't given it to someone else.

      Now, imagine that I'm thinking of an idea. Obviously, this does me no good whatsoever unless I communicate it to someone else. But then once I do share it with someone else, I can't claim to "own" it anymore. As "property," it's inherently useless; therefore it makes no sense for it actually to be property.

      Now, you're right that a law allowing me to put down my rock and walk off while still "owning" it is a construction of society. However, such laws are still based on and justified by the physical reality of the situation. As a consequence, laws that try to establish the same thing for "intellectual property" have no basis or justification!

      In other words, although we, as a society, build up artificial constructs of law, eventually it all boils down to the physical fact that a rock cannot be used by both you and me at the same time, but an idea must be shared between us in order to be used. Everything else must follow from that, or else we end up with the situation we have here, which is that everyone disregards the law.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    10. Re:However by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd be willing to pay my share plus the shares of nine other people to fund a movie that sounds interesting.

      --
      Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    11. Re:However by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Second, you're missing the point. "Real property" and "intellectual property" are different

      Ah, I see. So when I wrote "The consequences of taking someone else's property are different in the two cases of course", which part of that point was I missing?

      You were missing the point that it makes no sense to speak of "taking someone else's property" in the context of "Intellectual Property," because it makes the false presumption that "Intellectual Property" is actually property. In other words, you're saying "P implies Q," but failing to realize that P is false.

      Please read up on basic economics. I would be happy to debate this subject with you, but until you have at least an elementary understanding of that field and how today's intellectual property laws fit into it, I do not see how I can illustrate the hole in your argument logically.

      My argument is one based on the physical reality of the universe; economics is irrelevant to it. In addition, you can't use "today's intellectual property laws" to justify themselves; that's a circular argument.

      As a starting point, consider that any time and money spend creating a work has an opportunity cost associated with it.

      Yep, I completely agree.

      Then consider that just because someone shares some information without themselves profiting from doing so, the act may still damage the commercial value of that information to others.

      I agree here too.

      Combine these two basic ideas and you start to build a more detailed economic picture that shows how a copyright holder can indeed be damaged by others sharing their work without compensating them, even if they still have a copy of the work themselves.

      If we first postulate that a "copyright holder" exists, then yes, I can indeed see how he can be damaged, economically. Now, here's the problem: it doesn't make sense, physically speaking, for any such "copyright holder" to exist in the first place!

      Your entire argument seems to be based on the presumptions that copyright exists and that it's possible to enforce. You then argue that, from those presumptions, that copyright infringement has negative consequences for the copyright holder, etc. In addition, you explain how copyright is desirable in terms of ethics (e.g. by giving authors fair credit for their work). That's all fine and dandy; I'm not disagreeing with any of it.

      All I'm disagreeing with is your claim that "intellectual property" is the same thing as "real property." If we had Star Trek-style replicators, then I'd agree with you (and, of course, extend my claims to include "real property" as well). But we don't, so the fact that "intellectual property" is inherently copyable while "real property" isn't causes them to be different in a very significant way. The consequence of that fact -- which is a feature of physical reality, not economics -- is that your postulates (that copyright can exist and be enforced) are false and the whole argument is moot. In other words, yes, P -> Q, but ~P, so you have (so far) failed to prove Q!

      For someone so clued up about logical fallacies, you're very quick to use an appeal to the masses. In fact, your final claim is demonstrably false, given that I am a counterexample. The recent success of legal on-line music services suggests that I am not the only one.

      My "final claim" wasn't a claim. Or at least, it wasn't a claim made for the purpose of justifying the rest of my argument. Still, you're right that I overstated it when I said "everyone" (which I meant in a colloquial sense).

      Also, which "success[ful] online music services" are you referring to? The ones that don't use DRM (e.g. eMusic, AllOfMP3), the ones that aren't actually successful (e.g. PlaysForSu

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    12. Re:However by mrmeval · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Samuel Z. Arkov http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0035098/

      Whip up a poster and title and see who wanted some of that. :)

      And the Toxic Avenger also was made that way.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    13. Re:However by KDR_11k · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Imagine I'm holding a rock. The physical reality of the fact that I'm holding (i.e., owning) it prevents anyone else from holding (i.e., owning) it at the same time. Moreover, I can use that piece of property without having to give it to anyone else first (for example, I can tie it to the end of a stick and go kill an antelope with it). Moreover, I can only use it if I haven't given it to someone else.

      Yes but society as a whole would benefit if anyone could take that rock the moment you put it down and you could take it back the moment he puts it down. Most tools are owned by many households despite being in actual use only for a short period of time. Society would greatly benefit if we would just have a number of tools that belong to society (a sufficiently large number, of course) that everyone can use if he needs them and overall we'd get by with less tools. Same for food, some people starve while others have more than they need. Why not make food property of society and give it to those who need it? Oh, wait, that's communism and people don't seem to like it.

      For the same purpose it can be argued that a copyrighted work is no longer useful if it gets distributed freely among others because it no longer has a resale value. To a corporation there is no value in the notes Britney sings other than their resale value. Additionally, 99% or more of the copyrighted works wouldn't have an actual benefit to society even if freely available. The value to the creator as e.g. a story is pretty much nil since he knows the entirety of it the moment he wrote it. The author already has that information and no need to write it down and show it to others except for gains coming from that sharing (recognition, profit, etc) that he'd lose if copyright was no longer there.

      Both physical and intellectual property exists because people have a way of thinking of both physical objects and ideas as theirs. Society's laws are formed around the ideas society holds about how the world should work. People think that others shouldn't be allowed to steal their ideas and implement it as a law, people later realize that means they can't steal other people's ideas either and complain.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    14. Re:However by nine-times · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've also been thinking about all this recently from the standpoint of the expense of resources. The use of natural resources, the expense of pollution, the expense of the distribution chain, internet bandwidth, and even hard drive space. It's odd to think about in these terms, since it's usually painted as an issue of consumer rights vs. corporate profitability, or as the desires of the audience vs. the needs of the consumer.

      However, the pictures changes if, for a moment, we re-imagine it as a problem for society to solve: how do we efficiently manage the distribution of recorded arts? For the sake of argument, lets disregard the other concerns, such as managing who is authorized to view what, or financial reimbursements to artists. Just think of the problem of distribution of information, as though it's assumed that the information is free.

      Suddenly it becomes clear that physical distribution, in this day and age, is *stupid*. We have this huge network at our fingertips, and we're going to waste materials on manufacturing millions of CDs? Many of those CDs are going to ripped to MP3 and then sit on a shelf. For what purpose? We use land and materials to build physical record stores (and Best Buy), we use the materials for the actual media, we pay people to search/maintain the inventory, there's the trucks and the shipping, and all that crap. Think of all the man-time and materials wasted.

      Also, users needing to rely on the hard drives in their home computer to store a specific copy of a top-40 hit or a Hollywood movie is nonsense. Right now, the top movie on iTMS is "The Prestige". Consider for a moment if I had bought that movie from iTunes 20 minutes before my hard drive died. Now, why should I need to keep a copy on my local hard drive? The movie has already been ripped, and the data exists elsewhere on the Internet. In order for me to download the movie again would only cost in used bandwidth, but those costs can be mitigated, ironically, by the sheer number of people downloading it. I'm sure that it's obvious to everyone here that the solution is P2P (bittorrent).

      It's become clear to me that for a society concerned with using resources efficiently, sharing information via P2P networks is a solution that's almost too good to be true. I'm not just talking about hippy-talk "conservation" in the environmentalist sense. I'm talking about the human resources, the expense of intellectual thought, and the money spent. Overall, those resources, too, would be more efficiently managed through P2P distribution.

      Now, some people would complain that jobs would be lost, but that's inherent in using human resources efficiently. Some of the human resources currently spent on these distribution issues are being spent unnecessarily. That we don't break windows makes less work for the window-makers, but breaking windows does not generate wealth. (Yes, I guess I'm suggesting that the MPAA/RIAA have become an example of the broken-window fallacy, and therefore create a net-loss for society)

  21. Re:Commodification by arivanov · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Bollocks,

    What the GP has noted from a more social perspective is actually valid on the physiological level. IIRC all ova in a female are completely developed before she reaches sexual maturity and after that dormant. During each ovulation one (usually) undergoes the final stage in its development and is secreted. No new ova are created.

    At the same time male spermatocites which divide to produce spermatosoids are produced constantly (albeit at a decreasing rate) until the males die. New sperm is created all the time.

    So the female vs male sexuality note is actually valid all the way down to the physiological and biochemical level. As far as procreation is concerned male sexuality is not a scarce resource. Female is.

    --
    Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
    http://www.sigsegv.cx/
  22. Re:If DRM causes piracy... by Thangodin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This reminds me of the old days of the Commodore 64, when the copy protection schemes sent the disk drive head skating over to track 0. The C64 had no sensor to keep the head in bounds, so it would slam against a hard stop, throwing the head out of alignment, quickly ruining the drive (constant realignment gradually made the drive unusable.) Even if you bought a legit copy of software, you had to use a cracked version or you would destroy your drive. Eventually most people gave up on buying the software altogether.

    In fact, the reason that most of the people I know didn't buy a copy of XP, and won't buy Vista, is the heavy handed DRM attached to it, which requires you to get permission from Microsoft to run your computer after 5 hardware changes. I can make 5 hardware changes in 5 minutes when I'm testing hardware. There is no way that I am going to spend half the night on the phone calling Microsoft. If I'm having a problem with hardware, I don't need the additional aggravation. I have a legit copy on my laptop--which never changes hardware--but I'll never install one on my desktop machine.

  23. 2: The products they want are high-priced.... by russ1337 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Principle 2: "The products they want are high-priced, so there's a fair amount of money to be saved by stealing them"

    I can attest to this 100% - in a different, but similar area many are familiar with. My example is my experience with WindowsXP. When I lived in New Zealand, I could not afford the NZD$536 (USD$377) for XP home to keep my CS:S habit alive, so I used a 'less than legitimate' copy of XP. Anyway, when I moved to the US I thought I'd go legit only because after a visit to Frys i saw i could pick up XP off the shelf at (USD$199) - almost half the price. Even better I managed to get an OEM XP home for just over a hundred bucks.

    Now there's no way I'm paying NZ$536 (USD$377) for an OS. No way. No way in hell. However, I was happy enough to part with a hundy for the OEM version. I didnt know of Linux at the time (now have 3 PC's on Ubuntu), but wanted XP to play CS:S and various other Windows games I'd paid for over the years (because they were well priced!!!)

    So yeah, hopefully big business will wake up and smell the coffee one of these days.

  24. Re:So let me get this straight... by KoldKompress · · Score: 2, Informative

    How Many times...
    Downloading pirated items is not Stealing! It's breaching a copyright. It is not depriving any party of their property. On top of that, your analogy is slightly off. DRM is not a lock on a door, it's a lock on your OWN door to make sure you don't go out and do bad stuff.

  25. Re:Nonsense by bcrowell · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Publishers claim that the majority of the cost of a book is printing, binding and shipping. All of those costs are gone with ebooks.
    Well, no. That may be true for certain types of books, but it is certainly not true for any that I'm familiar with. One type of book where I have hard data is upper-division physics textbooks (black and white). For those books, paper, printing, and binding (PPB) are about $10 a copy, whereas the price of the book is normally in the $50-100 range. One way to tell that PPB is not a big slice of the pie for textbooks in general is that the cost of college textbooks has gone up 62% in the last decade, whereas PPB definitely has not. Paper has gotten more expensive, but not enough to explain an increase in the cost of an organic chemistry textbook from $100 to $160. In some cases, PPB may be getting cheaper, because publishers are using POD in cases where it's economically advantageous. (A lot of fiction publishers are getting slower-selling titles produced by Lightning Source, for example, in small batches.)

    For most types of books, PPB is not a very big chunk of the retail price. Important chunks include:

    • editorial work
    • design work, for illustrated books, such as textbooks
    • licensing of photos (which is a per copy cost)
    • distribution
    • the bookstore's markup (typically 34% markup for a college bookstore)
    • advertising
    • financial costs incurred because you have to pay to produce the books, and then wait to sell them in order to get your money back
    • returns (a huge negative in the publishing business)
    I can't believe that shipping is a big hunk of the pie, especially if they're using media mail.
  26. Call me a stickler for language... by OakLEE · · Score: 3, Interesting

    But the article asserts that DRM causes more piracy. The summary of the article in the blurb does great injustice to the article by implying that but for the existence of DRM, there would be no piracy. That is frankly false. Piracy has been a problem since well before DRM (that's why they created it), and it would probably be one if DRM ceased to exist.

    Personally, I think the key issue with piracy is not DRM, but the fact that piracy and copyright infringement are becoming an acceptable to increasingly commit. The result of this is a situation where the laws of society are arguably out of sink with its values. Situations like this are hard to maintain because we depend as much on societal stigma as we do on criminal punishment to deter most crimes. When stigma is lacking or low, we often try to make up for this by adding criminal punishment to increase deterrence.

    The problem with this, of course, is that it creates a paradoxical situation where we punish people more for crimes we care less about (another example, non-violent drug offenses). Thus you end up with a situation where people are morally outraged, even fearful, at the threat of having the book thrown at them for a crime they do not consider "bad" at all.

    The biggest problem though for copyright infringement is that society normally deals with "lesser" crimes like these by imposing fines on the violator like with speeding for instance. People speed, and when they get caught they pay the fine, go to traffic school, and continue speeding. To most, the fine and traffic school are just the transactional cost of speeding to them.

    However, infringement is inherently tough to solve with fines, because it is an economic crime, not a behavioral one. A reasonable fine, the cost of purchasing the infringed material, would have at best a neutral effect on infringement society-wide. People would just infringe, take their chances, and worst case pay up if they get caught. However setting fines too high, as the current system arguably has them, has an even worse effect though, since your average infringer will tend to infringe more than otherwise, the logic being that "if getting caught for a little infringement is going to bankrupt me, I might as well get my money's worth by infringing a lot." Unreasonably high fines also create a situation where the infringed party inherently knows that the infringer is likely judgment proof (cannot pay the fines), further pissing them off. At this point, society tries criminal penalties as well as fines, which leads us to the current system we have.

    Obviously solving this problem is a toughy. We could kill copyright infringement as a crime, much as we repealed Prohibition, but that could create other problems, such as disincentivizing creativty, or encouraging tighter DRM, as creators deal with the ramifications. I offer no solutions, but this is the problem as I see it.

    --
    The sun beams down on a brand new day, No more welfare tax to pay, Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light...
  27. No by Kohath · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People decide to do things. "Piracy", in this case, is something a person decides to do. Each individual has the choice to act or not. DRM doesn't cause piracy. It probably creates incentives for piracy, but the choice still exists.

    The whole [some factor] "causes" [some behavior] is simply an assault on free will and an invitation to elite social engineers to take away more freedom from people.

    People behave the way they want to.

    (Example: Did videogames "cause" the Columbine massacre, or did some kids decide to massacre some people?)

  28. Re:If DRM causes piracy... by canajin56 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Thats exactly why I wouldn't. I know a friend who bought XP. He broke his soundcard so he replaced it. It stopped working after one hardware change. See, changing soundcards changes 5 or 6 hardware devices. Changes your game port, your mixer device, your wave out device, your MIDI device, your recording device, your legacy audio device. On top of that when he called Microsoft they refused to allow him to reactivate it, called him a pirate and hung up.

    --
    ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
  29. Real Pirates by MrSteveSD · · Score: 2, Funny

    Whenever I read about piracy, I always remember this scene from Amazon Women on the Moon.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7I5dVBezF9k

  30. Re:In the beginning, there was... by Robotech_Master · · Score: 4, Informative

    RTFA. The submitter's blurb simplifies Flint's point to the point of incorrectness. DRM didn't and doesn't cause piracy--there would be piracy without it. But it does promote piracy--there is more piracy with it than there would be without it. Flint himself never claims that DRM "causes" piracy.

    --
    Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
  31. Re:Nonsense by bcrowell · · Score: 2, Informative

    Baen proved that free books increase sales enormously.

    The problem is that you can't necessarily apply the same lessons to other types of information besides books, or even to other types of books.

    College textbooks. College textbooks are unlike science fiction books because they're extremely expensive, the target audience doesn't have any choice about whether to choose a particular book, and the same title typically sells steadily for many years. So for college textbook publishers, following the Baen model just won't work. If they wanted to make it work, they'd have to lower the price of a calculus textbook from $150 to more like $20. Baen's model depends on the idea that the electronic freebies help to keep the books popular; no such consideration applies to college textbooks, where the only concern is to keep the professor from adopting some other book.

    Software. The Baen model depends on the fact that books are available in two forms, paper and electronic, and most people who are actually going to read a science fiction novel prefer paper. It doesn't really work that way with software, although you can certainly try to make two versions, or sell support, etc.

    In both of these examples, information that has intentionally been set free by its authors really is a threat to the established industry -- and I think that's a good thing. (See my sig for numerous examples of free textbooks; not many of them are also available in print.)

  32. Re:Nonsense by Robotech_Master · · Score: 2, Informative

    But oddly enough, at least some people have found that free on-line editions of textbooks make the print versions sell better, too. See Flint's Prime Palaver #6.

    --
    Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
  33. Reductionism rules! by Infonaut · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The war on drugs is about ensuring that citizens are addicted to indigenous drugs, and that the profits are centrally controlled.

    That doesn't explain why the US government has so aggressively gone after marijuana cultivation here in the US. It also doesn't explain why the extremely powerful tobacco lobby keeps losing in court battles, or how these profits are "centrally controlled."

    That's why it's OK for Americans to be addicted to cigarettes and alcohol but not cocaine or crystal meth.

    Umm... you do know that crystal meth is produced in the United States, right? You seem to also imply that the only reason cocaine is illegal almost everywhere stems from the fact that coca leaves don't come from the United States. Perhaps that's right, if you assume that cocaine is a benign substance, and there's a globe-spanning conspiracy to keep this beneficial substance from citizens everywhere.

    Having everyone addicted to cocaine is a threat to national sovereignty.

    By that logic, the fact that so many Americans can't do without coffee should be serious cause for alarm. Time to crank up the Blackhawks, bring the SEALs down to Columbia, and lets take control of those coffee fields!

    Having them addicted to meth is a threat to profits.

    Is that because meth-addicted people will buy less alcohol and cigarettes?

    The free market would have everyone buying cheap meth or homemade shine, or addicted to foreign produced coke.

    That would be swell. I like that idea. More addiction for everyone!

    As it stands now, they're buying whiskey, cigarettes and cough syrup, which is just the way those on top like it.

    Yes, because The Sinister Cabal that runs America has made it so. The tobacco lobby is totally unrelated to the fact that in many southern states, the biggest cash crop is tobacco. Voters there probably don't want to promote the interests of tobacco growers. They've been forced to do so by The Man. Likewise, the alchohol distributors have effectively maintained a monopoly by keeping foreign-supplied beer, wine, whiskey, and every other form of alchohol out of America. Oh, wait. They haven't.

    The war on terror, on the other hand, is easy to fix.

    Of course it is. Whenever the world is binary, the solution is obvious.

    Keep your military and your CIA at home, and there will be no terrorism.

    Absolutely right. It wasn't until the US pulled out of Northern Ireland that the terrorism there and in the UK stopped. The Red Brigades and the Red Army Faction were terrorizing Italy and Germany until the US military left Europe. The Basque ETA. The Pakistani groups operating in India. Abu Sayyaf. All of these groups obviously will disappear as soon as the CIA disappears and the US military ends all its foreign presence.

    The terrorists are after vengence because they have been and continue to be systematically wronged. By Americans.

    Again, you see through the nuance quite clearly. There are no opportunists in the world of terrorism. These are all idealogically committed individuals, ready to give their lives for higher principles. Certainly none of them are using terrorism as a vehicle to further profiteering or mere power grabs. I think we can all agree that any problems that occur anywhere in the world are the result of America's negative influence.

    Well, it might be too late now. I imagine there are a lot of orphaned children who aren't going to forget what was done to them.

    You're right. All of the Shia children whose parents were killed by Sunnis, and all the Sunni children whose parents

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
  34. THAT IS NOT PIRACY by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know what you are trying to say but you are playing right into the hands of the MPAA and RIAA and the like with these statements.

    Ripping a CD you bought to put the music on your mp3 player is NOT piracy. Yes the RIAA likes to call it that, wich is why they want to add a tax on mp3 players and want to force you to rebuy a track for each piece of equipment you buy it on.

    That CD you play on your stereo, a itunes track for your PC, the ring tone version for your phone and so on.

    HOWEVER that is NOT what you are legally required to do.

    As far as downloading a crack to run software that you bought, in free countries were politicians are not in the pocket of industry, this is 100% legal. Imagine it would be illegal for you to take the tape out of a cassette player and put it on a spindle player instead. For that matter, imagine the police tried to arrest you for breaking into your own car.

    The actions you claim to have done DO NOT fall under piracy (well unless you did them whole boarding a vessel with a cutlass between your teeth), they are fair use actions that your a perfectly entitled to do.

    To even call this piracy is to give the RIAA and MPAA exactly what they want, that consumers think that limits can be put on what can be done with products you own.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  35. Protecting our interests... by shmlco · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The sole mistake Americans make is by automatically assuming that "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". All other mistakes including sending the military and the CIA are a mere consequence of this one."

    Actually, the major mstake we make, as a country, is assuming we have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations. This is usually done to protect our "interests", which in turn is code for protecting the interests of our various companies and corporations. Read "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq" and you'll see the same patterns repeated again and again and again.

    --
    Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
  36. Re:Commodification by Quantam · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The only way your post makes any sense is if you completely misunderstood me. By "you only have so much sperm" I meant you can only produce sperm at so great a rate. And the optimal rate for fertility is sex 2-3 times per week, hence the 150 children a year statistic mentioned previously.

    --
    You have tried to support your argument with faulty reasoning! Go directly to jail; do not pass Go, do not collect $200!
  37. Re:If DRM causes piracy... by kimvette · · Score: 2, Informative

    Even worse:
    Uninstalling an OEM driver and running the Microsoft-shipped driver counts as one hardware change, then installing a new version of the OEM driver counts as a second hardware changed. I've had NIC drivers, sound card drivers, and video card drivers trigger re-activation, and forced to call the Craptivation support line.

    F*** activation.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  38. Re:There will always be piracy by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You forgot a fourth reason, and the one which inspired this article in the first place:

    4) The illegally obtained file is less restricted and more useful than its for-pay equivalent. In short, you're choosing between paying nothing for a better product and paying something for a more frustrating, restrictive product.

    That's what they mean when they say, "DRM promotes piracy." If someone sells me an unencumbered file at a reasonable price, I'll accept it happily and move on. But if someone sells me a file that I'm allowed to play for a period no longer than five (5) years, on no more than two (2) authorized devices running our patented Music-N-Abled software... well, if I really, really feel that the artist deserves support, I might buy it before searching out an unencumbered file on BitTorrent. But either way, if I want it, I'm going to search out a file that does what I want, rather than waiting for the distributor to try and sell me the same product over and over again.

    You seem to want to interpret the statement "DRM promotes piracy" in a completely different way, that makes DRM responsible for every instance of piracy. I'm going to chalk it up to poor reading comprehension.

    --

    You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

  39. Re:Commodification by DrifterX79 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nice, take a slight at an ethno-religious group, play on a guy who chooses to voice his disgust at the remark that he felt was directed at his ethno-religious beliefs, and slight him even more by espousing you beliefs on a religious ceremony, by asking his to ponder your personal beliefs on circumcision. Nice...I applaud you...to bad I didn't have any mod points left to bring you even more off topic. Some things are personal choice, deal with it. Now if you were circumcised by your parents choice and don't like it, sorry. If you had a botched procedure and it caused you to lose normal function, I understand your reasonings here. But if you feel so strongly voice your opinion intellectually, don't just point us over to a site advocating making a procedure that is either a religious matter or a traditional matter illegal by law. That offends me personally. If you want it to change inform people, don't ask for more laws to invade my rights to carry on a religious or social tradition. The arguments your organization sites against circumcision just are not enough to justify mandating new laws. Laws just get in the way of living. I'm sorry that this bothers a small number of you, but I assure you you are not in the majority here.

    just my 10 bits

    Now about DRM causing piracy... I can see that. Lets make a law banning DRM ;)

  40. Re:Nonsense by cbhacking · · Score: 2, Informative

    A bit more details...

    Baen has a "free library" on their website with a small, frequently changing collection of stuff. However, their hardcover books also come with a CD licensed for free redistribution that can be copied onto hard drives, etc. No DRM whatsoever.

    A fellow running a (unrelated) site called TheFifthImperium has put the contents of every single one of these CDs up on his website at http://baencd.thefifthimperium.com. They can either be read online (as downloaded documents or HTML) or you can download the entire CDs. No idea of this site's ability to withstand Slashdotting, but it's well worth visiting. David Weber (of Honor Harrington fame, plus many other fine novels) and Eric Flint (author of this article and a vast number of superb sci-fi or fantasy books) feature heavily on these CDs, but there are books by quite a few BAEN authors included. If your local library has hardcover BAEN books, there's a good chance they'll have the CDs too (though the link above will get you to all the CDs, which is nice as no one CD has all the books they've distributed this way).

    Even if reading on a computer doesn't appeal too much, it's worth checking them out just to learn a bit about the authors and their works.

    --
    There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  41. Not wrong, just possibly flawed. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is perfectly fair, however, what's happening is that the at-risk business model really isn't practical anymore. Once the movie is made, it's difficult to monetize it, because copying it is trivial.

    I don't really have any problem with people trying to make movies, or even to make money by making movies. That's a legitimate occupation in my book.

    What I have a problem with, is when they try to alter the economic and technological landscape in order to make it easier for them to use a particular business model. That's where I draw the line. I could think of a lot of ways that I could change the world that would make it easier for me to make money, but that's just not how it works. The rest of us basically have to work within reality as it's presented to us, and we have to figure out ways of making money and otherwise surviving within that.

    The content producers want to, and are petitioning (read: bribing) government for, is to entrench their business model at the expense of other possibilities, and at the expense of a whole lot of other things besides (not least of which is my freedom to do whatever the hell I want with the equipment I've purchased).

    There's nothing inherently wrong with their business model, it just may not work. They're welcome to try, but if it doesn't work, I expect them to pick up and go back to the drawing board and figure out another way to finance movies, if making movies is what they want to do. For them to instead pour a ton of cash into, and generally mess up and corrupt, government, in order to keep a flawed business model around, is unacceptable.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  42. Re:Wrong Use of "anti-semitic" by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You dumbass. The word 'anti-semitic' does, in fact, mean 'anti-jewish', or, more specifically, 'jew-hater'.

    Why? Because that's what it was coined to mean, fairly recently, and that's what people use it to mean. You cannot deconstruct words into their root forms and argue that the roots mean the word means something different, language doesn't work that way.

    In your universe, a 'light switch' is a misnomer because it's actually controlling electricity, not 'light', and an 'automobile' would include those subway trains that drive themselves, but not cars.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  43. Re:Statement: Insightful. Sarcasm: overrated by DavidTC · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The really fun thing about any copyright discussion here is watching one set of people arguing 'What is needed', namely, how we 'need' copyright law, against people who say that copyright law is a violation of their rights, past people who are arguing 'What is true', that copyright law used to rely on a level of inconvenience that is now gone and thus is almost totally unenforceable.

    We may, indeed, need copyright law to continue to encourage content producers. That is totally orthagontal to whether or not enforcing copyright law is possible in a digital world.

    If you fall out of an airplane without a parachute, you can argue that you 'need' to reduce your speed before you hit the ground, and you'd be correct. You could argue that free-falling is kinda fun, and you'd be right too. Or you could argue that you have no way to do the first thing, and you'd also be correct. Sometimes there is not actually a 'correct' solution.

    We may, indeed, smash into the ground so hard we destroy quite a lot of produced content. Arguing that we 'shouldn't' do that is rather surreal, considering we already jumped from the plane.

    If everyone works together, they might be able to invent, at least, a hang glider or at least aim for a lake. But we have way too many people arguing about what 'should' happen, without considering that there is absolutely no way to do what they think 'should' happen so perhaps they should aim for something a bit more likely.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?