My view will be controversial...but DRM is not good or evil. DRM is a tool.
The SONY rooktkit is not DRM. The SONY rootkit is an abomination.
DRM is like a knife. In a surgeon's hands, a knife can save lives. In a butcher's hands, the same knife can cut throats. It's the knife wielder that we have to watch. The DRM wielders haven't learned how to properly use or label DRM yet.
What we should do is ensure DRM is properly labeled. I might be willing to pay x amount, or nothing at all, for a song I can listen to only once. I might be willing to pay x + y amount for a song I can listen to an infinite number of times. I might be willing to pay x + y + z amount for a song I can listen to an infinite number of times and make N copies of for non-commercial use or put on an MP3 or other device.
I need to know, before buying anything, the limitations imposed. I need to know what I can do. I need to know what I am buying.
People shouldn't fear DRM.
DRM will do to the music and movie industry that the cable industry did for/to the television industry. There will be "pay-per-view" channels where one can listen to something only once and make no copies. There will be "Showtime/HBO" channels where one pays a monthly fee for access to the record or movie library. There will be "free" channeles with commercials where one can make a recoding and do anything as long as it's for non-commerical use.
The big record labels and movie studios won't go away. They will become less important. ABC, CBS, NBC, haven't gone away. HBO and Showtime have their niche. WGN, TBS, CNN, FOX, ESPN, have their following. Pay-Per-View has it's place.
Smaller bands will benefit immensely. Smaller bands will join together to form their own channels. Smaller movie producers will do the same.
With DRM, a band could broadcast a live convert, over the Internet, with a listen once, no record limitations, for a certain fee. The same band could release previous music, with less restrictive DRM or no fees, to drum up support for their concert. To gain popularity, a band could broadcast a concert with less restrictive DRM.
DRM will not stop piracy. Criminals will always find a way around DRM. Law enforcement will always have work to do.
DRM will allow new business models much as the cable industry allowed new business models in the television industry.
Perhaps the RIAA and MPAA see this coming. I doubt it. But, they will have no choice. They will face competition and lose market share just as the big three television networks did.
I believe people in Congress are looking into the problem of spam.
There is a "Letter from Bill Gates to the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee Regarding Spam Hearings" dated Wednesday, May 21st, 2003 at URL: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/misc/billgspam0 5-21-03.asp
I worry when government intervenes too much because government can be extremely heavy-handed.
I would hope the ISPs can act together to deal with SPAM. I would hope government is used as a last resort in either civil or criminal proceedings.
To me, there are 3 problems with the e-mail spam I receive: 1) the e-mail headers are mostly forged.
The only information I can trust is the Received: From field added by my ISP's e-mail service.
2) the e-mail originates or is relayed by a third party.
The third party is also a victim. The third party most likely has virus software originating the e-mail spam or has mis-configured their e-mail server as an open relay.
3) There is no way to get off the e-mail spammers list.
I have no way to complain to the ISP or government authorities about the e-mail spammer. The only hint of the identity of the e-mail spammer is the website being advertized. As another poster noted, the owner of the website can claim ignorance of the actions of the e-mail spammer.
I would suggest the following solution: 1) remove the anonymity of the e-mail sender.
The only way of accomplishing this that I can think of is for all ISP e-mail servers to properly mark the e-mail messages generated by their users.
I realize some people will need anonymity. I would suggest the mark inserted by the ISP can be a number the ISP can map back to the sender. This number will not tell me the identity of the sender, but will enable the ISP to identify the sender. I will then complain to the ISP and/or government agency. If my complaint is valid, the ISP and/or government can take action.
2) Have a list of ISPs and businesses that are willing to guarantee the identity of the sender of the e-mail and guarantee the sender is not a spammer and only do business with an ISP that is on that list and is willing to only accept e-mail from those on that list.
This would mean there are no open sendmail relay servers on the Internet.
This would mean any ISP or business that failed to guarantee the identity of the sender or allowed spamming would be removed from the list and would not be able to send e-mail to the rest of the Internet community until their practices changed.
3) If I have a valid complaint against a user of an ISP, the ISP has to be willing to take action.
ISPs need to write customer agreements saying sending e-mail spam is a violation of the contract and ISPs need to be willing to take civil action against violators.
If the ISP does not take action, I need a way to complain to the people who maintain the list of ISPs with which other ISPs accept e-mail so the offending ISP can be removed from the list.
Slashdot Mirror
Other people may have already made this comment.
Don't the boxmakers, Dell, Gateway, whomever, insure the correct drivers are available for the hardware in the box.
If a boxmaker were releasing a Linux distro, wouldn't one expect the boxmaker to do the same for Linux?
I've always felt, perhaps incorrectly, the boxmakers make life easier for Windows users, out of the box.
My view will be controversial...but DRM is not good or evil. DRM is a tool.
The SONY rooktkit is not DRM. The SONY rootkit is an abomination.
DRM is like a knife. In a surgeon's hands, a knife can save lives. In a butcher's hands, the same knife can cut throats.
It's the knife wielder that we have to watch. The DRM wielders haven't learned how to properly use or label DRM yet.
What we should do is ensure DRM is properly labeled.
I might be willing to pay x amount, or nothing at all, for a song I can listen to only once.
I might be willing to pay x + y amount for a song I can listen to an infinite number of times.
I might be willing to pay x + y + z amount for a song I can listen to an infinite number of times and make N copies of for non-commercial use or put on an MP3 or other device.
I need to know, before buying anything, the limitations imposed. I need to know what I can do. I need to know what I am buying.
People shouldn't fear DRM.
DRM will do to the music and movie industry that the cable industry did for/to the television industry.
There will be "pay-per-view" channels where one can listen to something only once and make no copies.
There will be "Showtime/HBO" channels where one pays a monthly fee for access to the record or movie library.
There will be "free" channeles with commercials where one can make a recoding and do anything as long as it's for non-commerical use.
The big record labels and movie studios won't go away. They will become less important.
ABC, CBS, NBC, haven't gone away. HBO and Showtime have their niche. WGN, TBS, CNN, FOX, ESPN, have their following. Pay-Per-View has it's place.
Smaller bands will benefit immensely. Smaller bands will join together to form their own channels. Smaller movie producers will do the same.
With DRM, a band could broadcast a live convert, over the Internet, with a listen once, no record limitations, for a certain fee.
The same band could release previous music, with less restrictive DRM or no fees, to drum up support for their concert.
To gain popularity, a band could broadcast a concert with less restrictive DRM.
DRM will not stop piracy. Criminals will always find a way around DRM. Law enforcement will always have work to do.
DRM will allow new business models much as the cable industry allowed new business models in the television industry.
Perhaps the RIAA and MPAA see this coming. I doubt it. But, they will have no choice. They will face competition and lose market share just as the big three television networks did.
I believe people in Congress are looking into the problem of spam.
0 5-21-03.asp
There is a "Letter from Bill Gates to the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee Regarding Spam Hearings"
dated Wednesday, May 21st, 2003 at URL: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/misc/billgspam
I worry when government intervenes too much because government can be extremely heavy-handed.
I would hope the ISPs can act together to deal with SPAM. I would hope government is used as a last resort in either civil or criminal proceedings.
To me, there are 3 problems with the e-mail spam I receive:
1) the e-mail headers are mostly forged.
The only information I can trust is the Received: From field added by my ISP's e-mail service.
2) the e-mail originates or is relayed by a third party.
The third party is also a victim. The third party most likely has virus software originating the e-mail spam or has mis-configured their e-mail server as an open relay.
3) There is no way to get off the e-mail spammers list.
I have no way to complain to the ISP or government authorities about the e-mail spammer. The only hint of the identity of the e-mail spammer is the website being advertized. As another poster noted, the owner of the website can claim ignorance of the actions of the e-mail spammer.
I would suggest the following solution:
1) remove the anonymity of the e-mail sender.
The only way of accomplishing this that I can think of is for all ISP e-mail servers to properly mark the e-mail messages generated by their users.
I realize some people will need anonymity. I would suggest the mark inserted by the ISP can be a number the ISP can map back to the sender. This number will not tell me the identity of the sender, but will enable the ISP to identify the sender. I will then complain to the ISP and/or government agency. If my complaint is valid, the ISP and/or government can take action.
2) Have a list of ISPs and businesses that are willing to guarantee the identity of the sender of the e-mail and guarantee the sender is not a spammer and only do business with an ISP that is on that list and is willing to only accept e-mail from those on that list.
This would mean there are no open sendmail relay servers on the Internet.
This would mean any ISP or business that failed to guarantee the identity of the sender or allowed spamming would be removed from the list and would not be able to send e-mail to the rest of the Internet community until their practices changed.
3) If I have a valid complaint against a user of an ISP, the ISP has to be willing to take action.
ISPs need to write customer agreements saying sending e-mail spam is a violation of the contract and ISPs need to be willing to take civil action against violators.
If the ISP does not take action, I need a way to complain to the people who maintain the list of ISPs with which other ISPs accept e-mail so the offending ISP can be removed from the list.