Far fewer works were created, and they were far less widely distributed, in that time.
Yeah, and that's TOTALLY because of copyright and has NOTHING to do with hundreds of millions of connected super-presses in people's homes, or that the population is more educated, with a far smaller portion of the people engaged in primary food production or strenuous manual labor.
The whole point of introducing intellectual property is to apply Smith-style free market economics
Smith was anti-monopoly, so calling legal monopolies his style is pretty ridiculous. Copyright was making lemonade out of a corrupt system of press control, censorship, and church/state backed propaganda. This lemonade was at the behest of the publishers guild, who didn't want their money train to end.
It might be a succinct way of describing something, but obviously I don't think it's a particularly accurate metaphor in this case.
Almost everything is cracked immediately these days. Might get a honeymoon of a few months when a new format drops, but in the long run, almost everything is cracked unless it's too obscure to be worth cracking.
Maybe, though rather like car theft, it's become difficult enough to break the security systems directly that most people are working around them, in this case by finding a different source for the material.
In any case, during the time-and-attention stage, the DRM is inhibiting illegal distribution, and even after it's been cracked it's still inhibiting illegal distribution for some people, who don't know where to find illegal sources, are concerned about the dangers of downloading them, or simply didn't realise that downloading to keep wasn't allowed if it was easy to do.
I can download the blu-ray rip without having to put pants on. The only thing is that if I do buy a blu-ray, I can't conveniently make copies like I could with a pirated version, which will never prevent it from getting on TPB the day of release if not before. You are just repeating talking points about deferring casual piracy without taking into consideration how people would even try to get their media.
Because they've already ripped the other things, and in many cases, much of the older stuff has exceeded a lot of its relevance. And of course, if it's legal, its not considered pirating, and thus you are simply an archivist.
That has nothing to do with the asymmetry in the struggle here. Movie studios are trying to make copying machines not copy so they can share media that can't be shared. They have to give the keys to the user, but can't let the user have the key. By contrast, the pirates want to copy and share the media and key with the copying machines. One side has a much easier task than the other.
And here I am, watching Netflix DRM free on Linux and downloading what I want to watch that they don't have. Last year was the supposed great victory against piracy, and yet nothing has really slowed down except for the conversion of customers with quality and convenience.
No, the Internet does not interpret censorship as anything. The Internet is not alive, and the actions taken to distribute works illegally are ultimately taken by people.
And nature can't actually abhor anything, since it's an abstract concept. But the anthropomorphic metaphor is a succinct way of describing a phenomena, so welcome to 8th grade English class. Any DRM of static media will be broken, given sufficient time and attention, and once broken, the static media can be distributed throughout the internet unimpeded. Some MS researchers basically repeated that in a paper and nearly got fired.
Also, comparing measures to prevent infringement of copyright, which is merely against laws that are widely applicable throughout the world, with the sometimes very real problems of actual censorship is just a propaganda move designed to attract an emotional response that is not otherwise justified.
Technology is amoral, and if you think of it as anything else, you are delusional. It's not about who is good, who is bad, and what is equivalent, but about the inherent logistics of trying to control the dissemination of information. The pro-dissemination side has an inherent long-term advantage even when the anti-dissemination side has vastly greater resources, whether it's Chinese dissidents, terrorists, child pornographers, bored hackers, or pirates.
Slightly, but the cost of a reasonably effective DRM scheme relative to the scale of deals that the likes of Netflix and major movie studios are making is probably pretty small.
There is no reasonably effective DRM stream. Any movie or TV is on TPB basically as soon as a legit copy or stream is available.
That only follows if you assume the DRM doesn't have a beneficial effect that justifies its cost. If that were true, the executives running Big Media businesses would have switched tactics long ago.
That only follows if you are that the executives running Big Media businesses were perfectly rational and omniscient. Having lots of money and power can do a lot to insulate against the effects of stupidity. Head coaches of professional football teams, paid millions of dollars, always punt on a fourth down, despite statistics sayings that they usually should go for it. By your logic, this shouldn't be happening, because you aren't acknowledging that reality is more complex than "invisible hand" metaphors.
In contrast, if you look at the issues raised in the bug trackers after Chrome 55 added that download icon to the controls on HTML5 video elements, you'll find one comment after another from web developers whose clients were extremely unhappy about it. It wasn't just because it made it more obvious that people could download and save unprotected videos; obviously web developers knew this was possible before. It was also because the mere existence of the icon was causing visitors to those clients' sites to think that downloading and keeping the videos was permitted, even if it was totally against their terms. If you've never run a web business, you might not appreciate how much of a business finance and customer service problem even such a little change can cause, and equally how much hassle and abuse can be avoided just by making casual infringement a bit less easy/obvious.
Seems like the better option is to keep the suits out of technical discussions. Which I know is often not an option, but I don't see any reason for pretending that they aren't the root of problem. Expecting agnostic copying machines to not copy agnostically is deeply irrational.
This is one of those nonsense sayings that gets trotted out every time, but it makes no sense economically.
Information wants to be free in the "libre" sense, so economics doesn't come into play. Similar to how nature abhors a vacuum, the net (and largely, information in general) interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. DRM is censorship from that perspective.
Only if there's still stuff to pirate, and only if you don't suffer real world consequences for breaking laws when you rip infringing content. Neither of those is an inherent truth in the world.
There are already orders of magnitude more media than any human could possibly watch. You're just repeating industry shill "the sky is falling" garbage. Now, you are correct that lawyers might get involved, but they will only make themselves look bad. There is no money to be made in trying to scare pirates straight. There IS money in providing a convenient service, and DRM never adds convenience.
Yes, it fucking does. I watch things on Netflix because it's convenient. If Netflix ceases to be convenient or what I want isn't there, I get it from somewhere else. We've done this song and dance with music, and DRM-free mp3s won despite all of the exact same arguments being made.
We have plenty of "alternate ways to supply their content" as well. Information wants to be free, remember? If piracy/DRM-free is the most universal platform, we win.
The cost isn't in implementing the DRM, it's in losing customers because the DRM is inconvenient. DRM'd media is broken, and by not giving them a unified standard, we ensure that customers eventually see it as such. Everyone is talking about the hypothetical clusterfuck of non-standardized DRM, and I'm here saying that it's not a bug, it's a feature.
No, I'm thinking that DRM-free content will have an edge when people have to go through 12 different kinds of DRM to watch whatever they want, while pirates and DRM-free services "Just Works";. We've fought this fight before, and we kicked its ass on music.
Because people will do whatever is easiest. By making DRM harder and more inconvenient, you make it less profitable, which puts non-DRM media at an advantage.
But as you say, DRM doesn't and can't work. Why the fuck should we bow down to a party that will ultimately lose? There are other considerations, and if they have to go out of their way to use DRM, it will become a more costly approach. Make them pay for buggy, substandard solutions and they'll either get it together or be eaten alive by pirates providing a better experience.
It's about the power dynamics. Free-flowing information is the norm on the internet, and unless browsers enable such support, pirates will keep DRM in check because everything gets broken. Surrendering to the media companies isn't tactically sound, because the math is on our side.
Actually, increased standard of living is strongly associated with lower birth rates, so your analogy falls flat. It has nothing to do with helping the poor, and everything to do with things such as the military industrial complex.
Because the point of a mobile device is that it can be far away from a WALL, not far away from you. If I want sound to go from my device to my ears, a wire is the most efficient way of doing so. No fuss, no muss, no batteries, and typical repairs can be performed, if necessary, using century old tech.
No, because it's easier to resolve the presented issue with reasonable laws on access than to grant an exception for a hypothetical that will inevitably be abused.
The "typo" is just a CYA retcon of the facts, because it's really bad for your career to admit the truth in these kind of situations.
You are also assuming that the actions of our intelligence agencies align with the interests of the American people at large, but the reality is that very often they are mostly serving the oligarchy, and I'm not really bothered if they are hurt by foreign spies.
I'm still rather skeptical of it being Russia, or any of the above having a clue who it was. The DNC/Podesta security was a complete laughing stock, and AFAIK, the only people that have actually looked at any direct evidence are Crowdstrike, who will blame any nation-state for any attack if the money's right.
As for why Russia would have an interest if they were truly to blame, it's not rocket science. Clinton supported a "let's escalate to WWIII with Russia" policy (no-fly zone in Syria), which Russia has obvious and rational reasons to be against. The downside for the Ruskies is that hawks like McCain are trying to goad him into the same stupid policies.
And there's also the very reasonable possibility that blaming Russia for "hacking the election" is deception from the US. They have means, motive, and opportunity for such deception, and it hits a big scary button for Americans over a certain age.
Superdelegates are not a "checks and balances" thing. They aren't part of the government, and they exist only to undermine the primary process. The superdelegates were used to prop up Clinton's campaign. Clinton managed to lose to the most hated candidate ever. Voters aren't perfect, but superdelegates drove the Dems right into an iceberg.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, and that's TOTALLY because of copyright and has NOTHING to do with hundreds of millions of connected super-presses in people's homes, or that the population is more educated, with a far smaller portion of the people engaged in primary food production or strenuous manual labor.
Smith was anti-monopoly, so calling legal monopolies his style is pretty ridiculous. Copyright was making lemonade out of a corrupt system of press control, censorship, and church/state backed propaganda. This lemonade was at the behest of the publishers guild, who didn't want their money train to end.
Almost everything is cracked immediately these days. Might get a honeymoon of a few months when a new format drops, but in the long run, almost everything is cracked unless it's too obscure to be worth cracking.
I can download the blu-ray rip without having to put pants on. The only thing is that if I do buy a blu-ray, I can't conveniently make copies like I could with a pirated version, which will never prevent it from getting on TPB the day of release if not before. You are just repeating talking points about deferring casual piracy without taking into consideration how people would even try to get their media.
Because they've already ripped the other things, and in many cases, much of the older stuff has exceeded a lot of its relevance. And of course, if it's legal, its not considered pirating, and thus you are simply an archivist.
That has nothing to do with the asymmetry in the struggle here. Movie studios are trying to make copying machines not copy so they can share media that can't be shared. They have to give the keys to the user, but can't let the user have the key. By contrast, the pirates want to copy and share the media and key with the copying machines. One side has a much easier task than the other.
And here I am, watching Netflix DRM free on Linux and downloading what I want to watch that they don't have. Last year was the supposed great victory against piracy, and yet nothing has really slowed down except for the conversion of customers with quality and convenience.
And nature can't actually abhor anything, since it's an abstract concept. But the anthropomorphic metaphor is a succinct way of describing a phenomena, so welcome to 8th grade English class. Any DRM of static media will be broken, given sufficient time and attention, and once broken, the static media can be distributed throughout the internet unimpeded. Some MS researchers basically repeated that in a paper and nearly got fired.
Technology is amoral, and if you think of it as anything else, you are delusional. It's not about who is good, who is bad, and what is equivalent, but about the inherent logistics of trying to control the dissemination of information. The pro-dissemination side has an inherent long-term advantage even when the anti-dissemination side has vastly greater resources, whether it's Chinese dissidents, terrorists, child pornographers, bored hackers, or pirates.
There is no reasonably effective DRM stream. Any movie or TV is on TPB basically as soon as a legit copy or stream is available.
That only follows if you are that the executives running Big Media businesses were perfectly rational and omniscient. Having lots of money and power can do a lot to insulate against the effects of stupidity. Head coaches of professional football teams, paid millions of dollars, always punt on a fourth down, despite statistics sayings that they usually should go for it. By your logic, this shouldn't be happening, because you aren't acknowledging that reality is more complex than "invisible hand" metaphors.
Seems like the better option is to keep the suits out of technical discussions. Which I know is often not an option, but I don't see any reason for pretending that they aren't the root of problem. Expecting agnostic copying machines to not copy agnostically is deeply irrational.
Information wants to be free in the "libre" sense, so economics doesn't come into play. Similar to how nature abhors a vacuum, the net (and largely, information in general) interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. DRM is censorship from that perspective.
There are already orders of magnitude more media than any human could possibly watch. You're just repeating industry shill "the sky is falling" garbage. Now, you are correct that lawyers might get involved, but they will only make themselves look bad. There is no money to be made in trying to scare pirates straight. There IS money in providing a convenient service, and DRM never adds convenience.
Yes, but if the only protection is clever javascript, there will be a script to rip the content in -3 seconds, making the DRM pointless.
Yes, it fucking does. I watch things on Netflix because it's convenient. If Netflix ceases to be convenient or what I want isn't there, I get it from somewhere else. We've done this song and dance with music, and DRM-free mp3s won despite all of the exact same arguments being made.
We have plenty of "alternate ways to supply their content" as well. Information wants to be free, remember? If piracy/DRM-free is the most universal platform, we win.
The cost isn't in implementing the DRM, it's in losing customers because the DRM is inconvenient. DRM'd media is broken, and by not giving them a unified standard, we ensure that customers eventually see it as such. Everyone is talking about the hypothetical clusterfuck of non-standardized DRM, and I'm here saying that it's not a bug, it's a feature.
No, I'm thinking that DRM-free content will have an edge when people have to go through 12 different kinds of DRM to watch whatever they want, while pirates and DRM-free services "Just Works";. We've fought this fight before, and we kicked its ass on music.
Because people will do whatever is easiest. By making DRM harder and more inconvenient, you make it less profitable, which puts non-DRM media at an advantage.
No, you win a war by dividing and conquering your enemy, not giving them a united front.
But as you say, DRM doesn't and can't work. Why the fuck should we bow down to a party that will ultimately lose? There are other considerations, and if they have to go out of their way to use DRM, it will become a more costly approach. Make them pay for buggy, substandard solutions and they'll either get it together or be eaten alive by pirates providing a better experience.
It's about the power dynamics. Free-flowing information is the norm on the internet, and unless browsers enable such support, pirates will keep DRM in check because everything gets broken. Surrendering to the media companies isn't tactically sound, because the math is on our side.
Actually, increased standard of living is strongly associated with lower birth rates, so your analogy falls flat. It has nothing to do with helping the poor, and everything to do with things such as the military industrial complex.
Because the point of a mobile device is that it can be far away from a WALL, not far away from you. If I want sound to go from my device to my ears, a wire is the most efficient way of doing so. No fuss, no muss, no batteries, and typical repairs can be performed, if necessary, using century old tech.
No, because it's easier to resolve the presented issue with reasonable laws on access than to grant an exception for a hypothetical that will inevitably be abused.
What's your really scary scenario? Our TLAs create/train more criminals than they catch, and from the very beginning, they have undermined democracy.
The "typo" is just a CYA retcon of the facts, because it's really bad for your career to admit the truth in these kind of situations.
You are also assuming that the actions of our intelligence agencies align with the interests of the American people at large, but the reality is that very often they are mostly serving the oligarchy, and I'm not really bothered if they are hurt by foreign spies.
I feel SO SORRY that the professional constitutional and human rights violators aren't feeling all that chipper about their work.
I'm still rather skeptical of it being Russia, or any of the above having a clue who it was. The DNC/Podesta security was a complete laughing stock, and AFAIK, the only people that have actually looked at any direct evidence are Crowdstrike, who will blame any nation-state for any attack if the money's right.
As for why Russia would have an interest if they were truly to blame, it's not rocket science. Clinton supported a "let's escalate to WWIII with Russia" policy (no-fly zone in Syria), which Russia has obvious and rational reasons to be against. The downside for the Ruskies is that hawks like McCain are trying to goad him into the same stupid policies.
And there's also the very reasonable possibility that blaming Russia for "hacking the election" is deception from the US. They have means, motive, and opportunity for such deception, and it hits a big scary button for Americans over a certain age.
Superdelegates are not a "checks and balances" thing. They aren't part of the government, and they exist only to undermine the primary process. The superdelegates were used to prop up Clinton's campaign. Clinton managed to lose to the most hated candidate ever. Voters aren't perfect, but superdelegates drove the Dems right into an iceberg.