You're right that non-DRM copies of content exist today. But if I'm a media exec I see that as an anomaly that I want to resolve, not capitulate to. Non-DRM copies exist for two reasons. They are copied from unprotected sources (CDs), or the DRM is circumvented because it is not strong enough. If I'm a media exec, I want to eliminate all distribution channels that aren't DRM thereby eliminating source #1 for unprotected content. I also want to tackle point #2 through extremely strong DRM (down to the hardware) and legal protections so non-DRMed media becomes VERY VERY hard to come by, and is obviously illegal. Obviously source #2 is an ongoing battle... and probably will never be won outright, but if you can make non-DRMed music hard enough to come by that it's not worth the hassle to acquire for most consumers you can call that a victory.
The old VCR anology isn't quite accurate. Sure the VCR allowed people to make copies, but the issue today isn't copies... it's distribution. Sure people can make copies, but with VCRs, they couldn't distribute them widely without a relatively high cost (time to make a new physical copy, tape costs, shipping costs). With the Internet, anyone can distribute their copies of content to anyone else for next to nothing... or for a fixed cost (cost of your Internet connection).
My other post answers your basic question. DRM is all about keeping control with the owner of the copyright. The content owners may concede here and there over the next few years as DRM grows in strength and the technologies begin to incorporate it into the hardware, but ultimately DRM is definitely worth pursuing if you're a big time content owner.
You're missing the point... DRM is intended to stop the wholesale distribution of digital copies of music over the Internet, beyond just tape trading, BUT it's also meant to expand how media companies can sell their products. With strong DRM you can sell subscriptions, offer demos w/ a set # of plays before the song is disabled, and clamp down on all file trading. It gives media owners a huge set of options for how they want to sell their products, and helps to ensure that the revenue they recieve from those media properties is kept at as high a level as is possible. The scariest thing in the world for someone who owns the rights to a piece of content, and whose primary business is to invest in and sell content, is to just let it out their unprotected... once you've opened that pandora's box you can't put everything back again. The business case is VERY VERY strong for wanting to invest in DRM, especially for the large corporations who have billions of dollars tied up in their content.
Obviously consumers may not like everything that comes along w/ DRM... but you were talking about the business case.
is for someone with billions of dollars to just buy the rights to all content and develop a massive content delivery system to give it away for free. And ponies... ponies for everyone.
Would iTunes or any other legitimate music/movie service be *less* successful without DRM? I don't think so. Which begs the question: what's the **AA's business case for DRM?
You don't think that DRM makes music/move download services successful and that somehow "begs" a business case for DRM? Wierd. The business case for DRM is so freaking obvious... if you control how the music is distributed not just at the point of purchase but beyond you ensure that after market copying is severly limited and in turn help drive purchases back to your store instead of trading with their friends. DRM makes perfect sense from content owner's perspective.
"Web 2.0" is a useful simplifying concept, defined by the fact that several sites have begun to share a common set of technologies, behaviors, and user experiences and have been very successful in that.
Am I saying everybody should use the term "Web 2.0"... yeah, probably... because there isn't anything better right now. And the concept that it represents actually has value and meaning. I admit it's a shitty sounding term, but at the same time it does make sense to general people and therefore can simplify communication and help distinguish sites using a set of new technologies to create dynamic and/or collaborative user experiences from your typical database driven full-update websites.
I think most/. geeks are reacting negatively to the term "Web 2.0" for whatever reason, but is anyone actually disputing that the concept behind Web 2.0 is gaining broad acceptance and is actually proving to be very successful?
Yeah, and the original boom of the web was just some server side scripting languages and a formatted text file. Big deal?
You're using a reductionist argument the focuses on the technologies that are used to drive a new breed of web sites, lamely called "Web 2.0" sites. But "Web 2.0" isn't just about technology... it's about the general acceptance of those technologies and the results produced by using those technologies to increase collaboration and knowledge acquisition and sharing. Technology, despite what many geeks think, isn't that vaulabe in and of itself... it's value is derived through application.
Anyways, quit being such a bunch of narrow-minded argumentative idiots and just accept the term and focus on qualifying what it means and dispelling myths about what technology can and can't do. By clarifying the terms and engaging in the debate a bit, you might actually make a difference instead of standing on the sidelines hurling lame insults and rehashing pointless truths (that CSS is used... eee gads!) over and over again.
Do you believe everything you read on the Internet? Are blogs your new guides to truth? If so, you might need to be concerned about this... otherwise, just yawn and go on with your daily life. People mimick what they see all the time, either by copying it directly or repeating it in whole, part or kind from memory. Do you think that pop bands become popular purely based on their talent? Of course not it's marketing. Do you think that every political blog ever written has been a well thought out independant piece of writing? Of course not. Judge each blog on its merits. If the ideas are true then it doesn't matter if a Walmart PR guy wrote them or if a Joe Johnson in Multonomica, Missouri was inspired to wax poetic about his favorite store and their rock bottom prices.
Do not vote for one of these idiots. Vote against them. Stupid moronic medelsome politicians always trying to be do-gooders by making up problems they can solve. Idiots.
I hate "Web 2.0" too. How can you simplify such a cross-section of intrensic and diversion paradigm shifts and technology consequence bubbles into a single simplistic phrase like "Web 2.0". Answer: you can't. We're at a major technoecosocial crossroads here... let's keep the plan flying, our eyes focused on the goal, and remember that doers do and winners win.
You've got to love these stupid hippies... even if they've got something worth saying (which I'm not sure they do in this case)... they can't seem to do it in a way that doesn't make them look like dumb asses.
that might be the deal for you...but in case you dont want to judge people by your own dismal standards, be aware that to many the hallmark of mankind is the ability to help others out.
That's cute... and goes right back to my comments about wanting ponies for everyone. Given time and incentive man will exploit his fellow man... and there is and has been plenty of time and man is always creative to come up with incentives. Whether it be for material things or that you just don't like me, man can come up with a reason to take advantage of another man. History has proven this. Anyone who thinks man is inately good is a complete fucking moron. History argues against you. You accept this belief because you choose to or because it's something we all should aspire to, and yet there is no foundation for it in science or history and although I'm not a religious expert I know several major religions that reject this idea outright as well. You want to believe that everything can be all sweet in the world if we'd just hold hands... or more specifically we'd pool resources, taking money from people who have earned it (meaning done work for a defined compensation structure) and give it to people who did nothing for it through a formal government program. What you fail to realize is that many people, especially without incentives, sit on their fat lazy asses (an accusation you ignorantly lob at me), and in more complex political systems outside of the US, the leaders control the aid so they become stronger. I'm not against charity, I am totally against your Karl Marxish bring us all down to the lowest common denominator bullshit and this idea that we can all just get along... people are wicked and will exploit one another, power is essential to getting your way... good or bad, and you can't argue worth a shit. Even if you and your enlightened pot smoking buddies, you fucking hippie, can all get along your still at the mercy of someone else who decide they don't like you taking up their air or smoking weed. Of course given enough power you can just make us all docile little zombies that don't care enough about ourselves to want anything and thereby eliminate conflict... docile little zombies.
"I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it." --Jack Handy Deep Thoughts
truth is its lard-arsed zombies like you that keep them from that.
Yeah, that's it. So here's the deal moron, the hallmark of mankind is his uncanny ability to exploit his fellow man. Karl Marx's vision completely ignores that fact, well it assumes that because you work in a car factory or on a farm that somehow you're morally superior to everybody else and wouldn't take advantage of someone else. Yes, there are a bunch of powerful bastards (corporate types, politicos, and do-gooders) who take advantage of their positions and exploit people either willfully or because their hairbrained do-gooders schemes do more harm then good. Karl Marx was one of those bastards, so are most politicians (yes yes, I think GW is a pain in the ass too.)
But, apart from that you pegged me pretty well, being a lard arsed zombie who likes to keep people from food, shelter, and education. Why just the other day I paid a small company to make sure a family in Pakistan was run out of their house and into the hills so they couldn't work and had to sleep in teh cold. The video was absolutely hilarious... I need to create a new reality show or someting. Idiot!
You don't have to walk on egg shells in respecting other cultures... you can't... respect people, fuck cultures. This cartoon bullshit is a perfect example of why multiculturalism and trying to respect all cultures is completely idiotic. You can choose to respect free speech and Danish culture and defend the publication of ideas and opinions or can respect Arab Muslim culture and their relgious icons and belief systems, which not only supports the outrage over the cartoon but supports the violent response. It's all bullshit.
Could be... and it could be that ideas are powerful and maybe the relgion (same goes for any worldview) eventually, given the right circumstances, actually leads to this type of behavior. The idea that all belief systems are innocuous is completely stupid. Ideas have consequences. Certainly the political leaders have their hands in this as well.
You ignorant wretch... of course the percentage of Arab Muslims participating in the riots is low, most of them are too busy making bombs and blowing themselves to take time and riot.
I agree that Karl Marx is the opium of lazy ass self righteous ignorant do-gooders who can't seem to figure out that the world doesn't work in a way that will provide everyone with a pony and a bucket of flowers every morning.
Although the compression technology is very powerful, it does not give you the right to distribute 10,000 songs on a public message forum. You have violated copyright and the DMCA and will be promptly shot.
I've been working on perfecting my algorithm for 1-bit compression and should have it ready to go in the next 3 to 5 years. Once released you'll be able to encrypt and compress all of your data down to a single bit. The algorithm will run effectively on processors found in most cell phones; it's not processor intensive. This will eliminate the need for big storage devices and high bandwidth connections.
I don't think this is really an OSS question. As IT technologies mature and end users demand stable/commoditized products those products (OSS or Commercial) tend to leave the marketplace, or are applicable only to a niche. Any new, or less mature, product is going to have a very very hard time competing with products that are better supported, more mature, or more feature rich. At the same time, as the market matures people expect more from the end-to-end solutions, and new products arise to perform those functions. They could be glue software that links together several other mature applications, they could be applications that help manage or report on the new more mature applications, or they could be brand new applications that leverage the standard/consistant application infrastructure.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I didn't respond in full.
You're right that non-DRM copies of content exist today. But if I'm a media exec I see that as an anomaly that I want to resolve, not capitulate to. Non-DRM copies exist for two reasons. They are copied from unprotected sources (CDs), or the DRM is circumvented because it is not strong enough. If I'm a media exec, I want to eliminate all distribution channels that aren't DRM thereby eliminating source #1 for unprotected content. I also want to tackle point #2 through extremely strong DRM (down to the hardware) and legal protections so non-DRMed media becomes VERY VERY hard to come by, and is obviously illegal. Obviously source #2 is an ongoing battle... and probably will never be won outright, but if you can make non-DRMed music hard enough to come by that it's not worth the hassle to acquire for most consumers you can call that a victory.
The old VCR anology isn't quite accurate. Sure the VCR allowed people to make copies, but the issue today isn't copies... it's distribution. Sure people can make copies, but with VCRs, they couldn't distribute them widely without a relatively high cost (time to make a new physical copy, tape costs, shipping costs). With the Internet, anyone can distribute their copies of content to anyone else for next to nothing... or for a fixed cost (cost of your Internet connection).
My other post answers your basic question. DRM is all about keeping control with the owner of the copyright. The content owners may concede here and there over the next few years as DRM grows in strength and the technologies begin to incorporate it into the hardware, but ultimately DRM is definitely worth pursuing if you're a big time content owner.
You're missing the point... DRM is intended to stop the wholesale distribution of digital copies of music over the Internet, beyond just tape trading, BUT it's also meant to expand how media companies can sell their products. With strong DRM you can sell subscriptions, offer demos w/ a set # of plays before the song is disabled, and clamp down on all file trading. It gives media owners a huge set of options for how they want to sell their products, and helps to ensure that the revenue they recieve from those media properties is kept at as high a level as is possible. The scariest thing in the world for someone who owns the rights to a piece of content, and whose primary business is to invest in and sell content, is to just let it out their unprotected... once you've opened that pandora's box you can't put everything back again. The business case is VERY VERY strong for wanting to invest in DRM, especially for the large corporations who have billions of dollars tied up in their content.
Obviously consumers may not like everything that comes along w/ DRM... but you were talking about the business case.
is for someone with billions of dollars to just buy the rights to all content and develop a massive content delivery system to give it away for free. And ponies... ponies for everyone.
Would iTunes or any other legitimate music/movie service be *less* successful without DRM? I don't think so. Which begs the question: what's the **AA's business case for DRM?
You don't think that DRM makes music/move download services successful and that somehow "begs" a business case for DRM? Wierd. The business case for DRM is so freaking obvious... if you control how the music is distributed not just at the point of purchase but beyond you ensure that after market copying is severly limited and in turn help drive purchases back to your store instead of trading with their friends. DRM makes perfect sense from content owner's perspective.
"Web 2.0" is a useful simplifying concept, defined by the fact that several sites have begun to share a common set of technologies, behaviors, and user experiences and have been very successful in that.
/. geeks are reacting negatively to the term "Web 2.0" for whatever reason, but is anyone actually disputing that the concept behind Web 2.0 is gaining broad acceptance and is actually proving to be very successful?
Am I saying everybody should use the term "Web 2.0"... yeah, probably... because there isn't anything better right now. And the concept that it represents actually has value and meaning. I admit it's a shitty sounding term, but at the same time it does make sense to general people and therefore can simplify communication and help distinguish sites using a set of new technologies to create dynamic and/or collaborative user experiences from your typical database driven full-update websites.
I think most
Yeah, and the original boom of the web was just some server side scripting languages and a formatted text file. Big deal?
You're using a reductionist argument the focuses on the technologies that are used to drive a new breed of web sites, lamely called "Web 2.0" sites. But "Web 2.0" isn't just about technology... it's about the general acceptance of those technologies and the results produced by using those technologies to increase collaboration and knowledge acquisition and sharing. Technology, despite what many geeks think, isn't that vaulabe in and of itself... it's value is derived through application.
Anyways, quit being such a bunch of narrow-minded argumentative idiots and just accept the term and focus on qualifying what it means and dispelling myths about what technology can and can't do. By clarifying the terms and engaging in the debate a bit, you might actually make a difference instead of standing on the sidelines hurling lame insults and rehashing pointless truths (that CSS is used... eee gads!) over and over again.
Yeah, and HTML is just an text file.
Do you believe everything you read on the Internet? Are blogs your new guides to truth? If so, you might need to be concerned about this... otherwise, just yawn and go on with your daily life. People mimick what they see all the time, either by copying it directly or repeating it in whole, part or kind from memory. Do you think that pop bands become popular purely based on their talent? Of course not it's marketing. Do you think that every political blog ever written has been a well thought out independant piece of writing? Of course not. Judge each blog on its merits. If the ideas are true then it doesn't matter if a Walmart PR guy wrote them or if a Joe Johnson in Multonomica, Missouri was inspired to wax poetic about his favorite store and their rock bottom prices.
Do not vote for one of these idiots. Vote against them. Stupid moronic medelsome politicians always trying to be do-gooders by making up problems they can solve. Idiots.
I hate "Web 2.0" too. How can you simplify such a cross-section of intrensic and diversion paradigm shifts and technology consequence bubbles into a single simplistic phrase like "Web 2.0". Answer: you can't. We're at a major technoecosocial crossroads here... let's keep the plan flying, our eyes focused on the goal, and remember that doers do and winners win.
Tim O'Reilly has the trademark on the phrase "Web 2.0".
can be found here
You've got to love these stupid hippies... even if they've got something worth saying (which I'm not sure they do in this case)... they can't seem to do it in a way that doesn't make them look like dumb asses.
that might be the deal for you...but in case you dont want to judge people by your own dismal standards, be aware that to many the hallmark of mankind is the ability to help others out.
That's cute... and goes right back to my comments about wanting ponies for everyone. Given time and incentive man will exploit his fellow man... and there is and has been plenty of time and man is always creative to come up with incentives. Whether it be for material things or that you just don't like me, man can come up with a reason to take advantage of another man. History has proven this. Anyone who thinks man is inately good is a complete fucking moron. History argues against you. You accept this belief because you choose to or because it's something we all should aspire to, and yet there is no foundation for it in science or history and although I'm not a religious expert I know several major religions that reject this idea outright as well. You want to believe that everything can be all sweet in the world if we'd just hold hands... or more specifically we'd pool resources, taking money from people who have earned it (meaning done work for a defined compensation structure) and give it to people who did nothing for it through a formal government program. What you fail to realize is that many people, especially without incentives, sit on their fat lazy asses (an accusation you ignorantly lob at me), and in more complex political systems outside of the US, the leaders control the aid so they become stronger. I'm not against charity, I am totally against your Karl Marxish bring us all down to the lowest common denominator bullshit and this idea that we can all just get along... people are wicked and will exploit one another, power is essential to getting your way... good or bad, and you can't argue worth a shit. Even if you and your enlightened pot smoking buddies, you fucking hippie, can all get along your still at the mercy of someone else who decide they don't like you taking up their air or smoking weed. Of course given enough power you can just make us all docile little zombies that don't care enough about ourselves to want anything and thereby eliminate conflict... docile little zombies.
"I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it."
--Jack Handy Deep Thoughts
truth is its lard-arsed zombies like you that keep them from that.
Yeah, that's it. So here's the deal moron, the hallmark of mankind is his uncanny ability to exploit his fellow man. Karl Marx's vision completely ignores that fact, well it assumes that because you work in a car factory or on a farm that somehow you're morally superior to everybody else and wouldn't take advantage of someone else. Yes, there are a bunch of powerful bastards (corporate types, politicos, and do-gooders) who take advantage of their positions and exploit people either willfully or because their hairbrained do-gooders schemes do more harm then good. Karl Marx was one of those bastards, so are most politicians (yes yes, I think GW is a pain in the ass too.)
But, apart from that you pegged me pretty well, being a lard arsed zombie who likes to keep people from food, shelter, and education. Why just the other day I paid a small company to make sure a family in Pakistan was run out of their house and into the hills so they couldn't work and had to sleep in teh cold. The video was absolutely hilarious... I need to create a new reality show or someting. Idiot!
You don't have to walk on egg shells in respecting other cultures... you can't... respect people, fuck cultures. This cartoon bullshit is a perfect example of why multiculturalism and trying to respect all cultures is completely idiotic. You can choose to respect free speech and Danish culture and defend the publication of ideas and opinions or can respect Arab Muslim culture and their relgious icons and belief systems, which not only supports the outrage over the cartoon but supports the violent response. It's all bullshit.
Could be... and it could be that ideas are powerful and maybe the relgion (same goes for any worldview) eventually, given the right circumstances, actually leads to this type of behavior. The idea that all belief systems are innocuous is completely stupid. Ideas have consequences. Certainly the political leaders have their hands in this as well.
You ignorant wretch... of course the percentage of Arab Muslims participating in the riots is low, most of them are too busy making bombs and blowing themselves to take time and riot.
I agree that Karl Marx is the opium of lazy ass self righteous ignorant do-gooders who can't seem to figure out that the world doesn't work in a way that will provide everyone with a pony and a bucket of flowers every morning.
I'm now officially calling for a Deliverance remake set in Iran!
Seriously, how big is your rebel flag... oh I mean the one on your truck not the one your bedroom wall.
Sir,
Although the compression technology is very powerful, it does not give you the right to distribute 10,000 songs on a public message forum. You have violated copyright and the DMCA and will be promptly shot.
Good day.
I've been working on perfecting my algorithm for 1-bit compression and should have it ready to go in the next 3 to 5 years. Once released you'll be able to encrypt and compress all of your data down to a single bit. The algorithm will run effectively on processors found in most cell phones; it's not processor intensive. This will eliminate the need for big storage devices and high bandwidth connections.
Get back to work you fuckin' hippie.
I don't think this is really an OSS question. As IT technologies mature and end users demand stable/commoditized products those products (OSS or Commercial) tend to leave the marketplace, or are applicable only to a niche. Any new, or less mature, product is going to have a very very hard time competing with products that are better supported, more mature, or more feature rich. At the same time, as the market matures people expect more from the end-to-end solutions, and new products arise to perform those functions. They could be glue software that links together several other mature applications, they could be applications that help manage or report on the new more mature applications, or they could be brand new applications that leverage the standard/consistant application infrastructure.