I think the point of this article is to posit that copyright *can* coexist with the digital copying/piracy that is so prevalent today. However, the business model needs to change. For instance, with music right now you can purchase DRM-laden songs for $1 each. Alternatively, you can find music on the P2P networks that is DRM-free and costs you nothing. How is a model like iTunes sustainable if the music is available for free elsewhere? Kelly's point is that people are willing to pay for things above and beyond the music itself. For instance, people trust that if you download something from iTunes, it will be virus- and spyware-free. This can be less than certain when dealing with torrents and such. Trust is therefore something that is "better than free" in the sense that people will choose to pay for something they could get for free if they trust the source.
The key is obviously taking advantage of the types of qualities Kelly is talking about. Make buying media more attractive than pirating it. Don't tell me I can only play the music I buy in one type of mp3 player because then you're making pirating more attractive. The big companies just need to wake up and get in the game. Stop fighting digital media and start embracing it. How long were TV shows available on bittorrent before SOME networks finally allowed SOME shows to be streamed online in full after they aired? Years! If I want to buy a digital copy of a movie, odds are I won't be able to find it and if I do it may very well be a slower download or of lesser quality than a pirated copy. I firmly believe that the majority of people who download digital media illegally do it because to pay for the alternative is unattractive not because of the price, but because of the bit-rate, slow speeds, DRM lockdown, or because it doesn't exist at all.
Sounds great. What do you do if you're unhappy with the service you get from the giant state-owned monopoly that actually provides your cable connection? Vote libertarian?
Bullshit. I'm unhappy now. I want faster speeds for less money. Guess what? No one is providing that. The suggestion is that the government build or help build the infrastructure since no one else is willing to do it. This reduces one of the major barriers to entry in the marketplace, allowing for MORE competition. The actual service (cable channels, email addresses, etc.) can be provided by those companies, leasing the infrastructure from the government et al. Maintenance can be done by whoever is providing the service.
Hell, I'd much rather be stuck with unreliable 40Mb/s speeds on government fibre than the current unreliable 7Mb/s that the market is giving me.
This bill was delayed, in part due to the outcry of thousands of ordinary Canadians. Geist set up a Facebook group last week that has grown to over 14,000 members. Check out the video from Question Period in Parliament today. My favourite quote from a member of the opposition NDP: "They tabled the bill this morning now three hours later he's telling me he's got cold feet? What, did he just discover Facebook this morning?"
Slashdot Mirror
I think the point of this article is to posit that copyright *can* coexist with the digital copying/piracy that is so prevalent today. However, the business model needs to change. For instance, with music right now you can purchase DRM-laden songs for $1 each. Alternatively, you can find music on the P2P networks that is DRM-free and costs you nothing. How is a model like iTunes sustainable if the music is available for free elsewhere? Kelly's point is that people are willing to pay for things above and beyond the music itself. For instance, people trust that if you download something from iTunes, it will be virus- and spyware-free. This can be less than certain when dealing with torrents and such. Trust is therefore something that is "better than free" in the sense that people will choose to pay for something they could get for free if they trust the source.
The key is obviously taking advantage of the types of qualities Kelly is talking about. Make buying media more attractive than pirating it. Don't tell me I can only play the music I buy in one type of mp3 player because then you're making pirating more attractive. The big companies just need to wake up and get in the game. Stop fighting digital media and start embracing it. How long were TV shows available on bittorrent before SOME networks finally allowed SOME shows to be streamed online in full after they aired? Years! If I want to buy a digital copy of a movie, odds are I won't be able to find it and if I do it may very well be a slower download or of lesser quality than a pirated copy. I firmly believe that the majority of people who download digital media illegally do it because to pay for the alternative is unattractive not because of the price, but because of the bit-rate, slow speeds, DRM lockdown, or because it doesn't exist at all.
This bill was delayed, in part due to the outcry of thousands of ordinary Canadians. Geist set up a Facebook group last week that has grown to over 14,000 members. Check out the video from Question Period in Parliament today. My favourite quote from a member of the opposition NDP: "They tabled the bill this morning now three hours later he's telling me he's got cold feet? What, did he just discover Facebook this morning?"