The hypothetical DRM you speak of would have a very interesting property: it would be aware of, and enforce *technically, any sort of agreement between the provider of the digits in question and the recipient. That, I think, is what perfect "digital rights management" would do, yes?
Alas, I object, for a pretty simple reason: human beings should be free to break their promises. I don't mean that such people are "good" -- in fact I think that keeping to one's agreements is *the *essential question of character.
A technical measure that makes it impossible to exercise this fundamental right to break promises (and, of course, accept the consequences of doing so) dehumanizes the parties thereto.
My brother is clinically insane. He just spent a year arranging his toenail clippings into a portrait of Christina Ricci.
Alas: society, in the aggregate, does not consider my brother's efforts to be time *valuably spent, in the economic sense. Especially as he did this outside, and the clippings were soon scattered to the four winds.
There is a principle at work here: you spend time doing what you think is valuable. Great. Enjoy. But when your work enters the marketplace, your assessment of its value means precisely dick. The relevant economic questions are:
What is the next-cheapest substitute? Is the difference worth it?
"If my brother spends a year writing a unique book, and you derive pleasure from reading it then you should compensate him."
I for one and tired of getting upset about this crap. Fact is, the US and the current powers-that-be in the "content industry" are just going to get smoked over the next decade. They're trying t o sell horses and buggies to people who already own free fusion-powered rocket cars. Have you guys seen Jamendo? Thousands of records; download as you please. Stream 'em. Only 20 or so from the U.S. last time I counted. Good music, though.
As a philosophy B.A., this thread disturbs me. There are about half a dozen references to "philosophy" as... well, it's hard to tell. "You keep using that word. I'm not sure it means what you think it means..."
Philosophy is about logic, the means of acquiring knowledge, and the limitations of knowledge. If someone says "I choose Linux instead of Mac b/c Apple is evil" that's not a "philosophic" decision, it's a moral one. What gives?
btw, by far the *more annoying misuse of "philosophy" is this one:
"At CompuGlobal Hyper MegaNet, out philosophy is Great Customer Service Every Day..."
We haven't been debating (and don't much care) whether your firm in particular chooses X or Y. It's more about why (e.g.) the 80% of Photoshop users who do basic cutting/pasting/editing of images still shell out for it when the GIMP is perfectly good.
Why do so many people buy SUVs when cheaper, cleaner sedans do the same job? They "feel safer". Scientific tests prove they aren't *actually safer, but there you go. Or it might be an image thing -- but that's not *rational decision-making.
"The philosophy and puritanism of OS=good and hip, commercial = bad and pest is not relevant"
I love when people just throw the word philosophy in like it's an insult. As though thinking is something to be ashamed of.
Not all definitions of good/evil are arbitrary or metaphysical. It is quite possible to have a definition of "evil corporation" according to libertarian principles. It is true that "a company that provides a bad-for-you product/service" would not fit it -- that company would fit many liberals' and conservatives' defs, though. Cf the left up in arms about tobacco, the right up in arms about gambling.
An Evil CO. by lib principles might be
-one whose product/service reduces its users' freedom -one that systematically defrauds its customers -one that encourages/requires government-granted monopolies
(I bet you see where I'm going with those example;) )
Anyway, its true that libs aren't in the habit of running around shouting about the evil, evil bad companies. But I think that -- to some degree -- that's a shame; libertarianism comes to mean "companies are always right". "Corportarian"?
"the free market only exists to make a profit, and they can easily deceive people about their effects on society."
I think you should check yr libertarian credentials: transactions in which one party is deceived about the effects of the transaction are not entered freely. They are fraudulent and prosecutable even in the "unregulated" market.
For approximately 10 years we've been arguing about why a lot of those products are so widely-used despite their (in some cases) inferiority or (in other cases) exorbitant pricing.
-(of particular interest to govts.) Instead of spending money on licensing fees that go into the Redmond, Washington tax base, you spend it on training, customization, etc. that can be performed by your constituency, and thereby have many generations of return -Any feature you want/need badly enough can be added. You don't have to hope that your desires are common enough to merit MS's attention. -You do not have to worry about whether sensitive information about your computers is being sent to Microsoft as part of some newfangled Automatic Updates or DRM "feature" -On the offchance that your government believes in individual liberty, F/OSS should give you a warm fuzzy feeling.
-It complies with published standards and therefore creates longer-lasting documents -Since the source code is available, you are not locked in to a single vendor -There are far, far more people who know the internals of the code and can offer you customizaton services. -Security holes are easier to spot.
It's been years since I took 'em, but you know the ones: Office competency tests... "Perform a Mail Merge using the file 'blahblah.txt'". Except that if you use hotkeys, it registers as a wrong answer.
I always wanted to train some sort of domestic animal to pass those tests.
First the diehard lib says (btw, I'm a diehard lib) "if a company is harming society, the market will eventually shun that company and it will have to change its ways". Then, when someone suggests a shunning an evil company it's "look, if I don't make money of this, someone will..."
Just seems like that invisible hand keeps getting more and more invisible..
It'd be a relatively simple matter to bribe some employee into leaking all the rest of the source code. The reason that only a few bits have been leaked is b/c of the high risk of serious consequences (which would not exist if there were no copyright) for everyone involved in the leaking.
A lot of people do not realize that they base many decisions (such as car purchases) on quirks of personality, or prejudices against certain people, rather than on the merits of the proposition in question. It's good that you recognize this. It would be even better if you would tried to stop doing it...
Alas, it's almost 100% certain that Darl will parlay this experience in the limelight into a cushy job at some other company when SCO's gone. Things are so screwed up...
I personally think Darl should get jail time. I consider him no better than Lay or Skilling.
There are studies "proving" that downloads hurt sales, and other studies that "prove" the opposite. There are so many variables at work that a short-term study will never suffice. By that I mean a study over filesharing patterns over less than 10 years.
I don't claim that my experience/anecdotal research constitutes "proof" that filesharing enhances music sales on a global scale. That would be silly -- almost but not quite as silly as the assertions of the "content owners" that this casual infringement costs them $billions/yr.
"DRM is intended to prevent or reduce casual copyright infringement"
I'd like to point out -- though most people here probably know -- that casual copyright infringement very likely improves the bottom line of the music publisher. E.g. my friend casually gives me a mix CD of tunes he thinks I'd like, I'm X% more likely to buy one of those artists' discs later. That X% increase has a monetary value in the aggregate. I'd love a link to a scientific study of that value.
The second-greatest day will be when they report that sales dropped off not the slightest bit b/c of this change DRM only annoys purchasers. Not "pirates"
Slashdot Mirror
The hypothetical DRM you speak of would have a very interesting property: it would be aware of, and enforce *technically, any sort of agreement between the provider of the digits in question and the recipient. That, I think, is what perfect "digital rights management" would do, yes?
Alas, I object, for a pretty simple reason: human beings should be free to break their promises. I don't mean that such people are "good" -- in fact I think that keeping to one's agreements is *the *essential question of character.
A technical measure that makes it impossible to exercise this fundamental right to break promises (and, of course, accept the consequences of doing so) dehumanizes the parties thereto.
My brother is clinically insane. He just spent a year arranging his toenail clippings into a portrait of Christina Ricci.
Alas: society, in the aggregate, does not consider my brother's efforts to be time *valuably spent, in the economic sense. Especially as he did this outside, and the clippings were soon scattered to the four winds.
There is a principle at work here: you spend time doing what you think is valuable. Great. Enjoy. But when your work enters the marketplace, your assessment of its value means precisely dick. The relevant economic questions are:
What is the next-cheapest substitute?
Is the difference worth it?
"If my brother spends a year writing a unique book, and you derive pleasure from reading it then you should compensate him."
And I will. Send it over.
any of the millions of artists past and present who either did not or could not copyright their work?
This is a great comment. Not to hijack, but this is an example of philosophy doing its job, which was the subject of this other post of mine
I for one and tired of getting upset about this crap. Fact is, the US and the current powers-that-be in the "content industry" are just going to get smoked over the next decade. They're trying t o sell horses and buggies to people who already own free fusion-powered rocket cars. Have you guys seen Jamendo? Thousands of records; download as you please. Stream 'em. Only 20 or so from the U.S. last time I counted. Good music, though.
As a philosophy B.A., this thread disturbs me. There are about half a dozen references to "philosophy" as ... well, it's hard to tell. "You keep using that word. I'm not sure it means what you think it means..."
Philosophy is about logic, the means of acquiring knowledge, and the limitations of knowledge. If someone says "I choose Linux instead of Mac b/c Apple is evil" that's not a "philosophic" decision, it's a moral one. What gives?
btw, by far the *more annoying misuse of "philosophy" is this one:
"At CompuGlobal Hyper MegaNet, out philosophy is Great Customer Service Every Day..."
We haven't been debating (and don't much care) whether your firm in particular chooses X or Y. It's more about why (e.g.) the 80% of Photoshop users who do basic cutting/pasting/editing of images still shell out for it when the GIMP is perfectly good.
Why do so many people buy SUVs when cheaper, cleaner sedans do the same job? They "feel safer". Scientific tests prove they aren't *actually safer, but there you go. Or it might be an image thing -- but that's not *rational decision-making.
"The philosophy and puritanism of OS=good and hip, commercial = bad and pest is not relevant"
I love when people just throw the word philosophy in like it's an insult. As though thinking is something to be ashamed of.
Not all definitions of good/evil are arbitrary or metaphysical. It is quite possible to have a definition of "evil corporation" according to libertarian principles. It is true that "a company that provides a bad-for-you product/service" would not fit it -- that company would fit many liberals' and conservatives' defs, though. Cf the left up in arms about tobacco, the right up in arms about gambling.
;) )
An Evil CO. by lib principles might be
-one whose product/service reduces its users' freedom
-one that systematically defrauds its customers
-one that encourages/requires government-granted monopolies
(I bet you see where I'm going with those example
Anyway, its true that libs aren't in the habit of running around shouting about the evil, evil bad companies. But I think that -- to some degree -- that's a shame; libertarianism comes to mean "companies are always right". "Corportarian"?
"the free market only exists to make a profit, and they can easily deceive people about their effects on society."
I think you should check yr libertarian credentials: transactions in which one party is deceived about the effects of the transaction are not entered freely. They are fraudulent and prosecutable even in the "unregulated" market.
Hi, welcome to /.
For approximately 10 years we've been arguing about why a lot of those products are so widely-used despite their (in some cases) inferiority or (in other cases) exorbitant pricing.
-(of particular interest to govts.) Instead of spending money on licensing fees that go into the Redmond, Washington tax base, you spend it on training, customization, etc. that can be performed by your constituency, and thereby have many generations of return
-Any feature you want/need badly enough can be added. You don't have to hope that your desires are common enough to merit MS's attention.
-You do not have to worry about whether sensitive information about your computers is being sent to Microsoft as part of some newfangled Automatic Updates or DRM "feature"
-On the offchance that your government believes in individual liberty, F/OSS should give you a warm fuzzy feeling.
-It complies with published standards and therefore creates longer-lasting documents
-Since the source code is available, you are not locked in to a single vendor
-There are far, far more people who know the internals of the code and can offer you customizaton services.
-Security holes are easier to spot.
Who wants to do the next four?
It's been years since I took 'em, but you know the ones: Office competency tests... "Perform a Mail Merge using the file 'blahblah.txt'". Except that if you use hotkeys, it registers as a wrong answer.
I always wanted to train some sort of domestic animal to pass those tests.
First the diehard lib says (btw, I'm a diehard lib) "if a company is harming society, the market will eventually shun that company and it will have to change its ways". Then, when someone suggests a shunning an evil company it's "look, if I don't make money of this, someone will..."
Just seems like that invisible hand keeps getting more and more invisible..
It'd be a relatively simple matter to bribe some employee into leaking all the rest of the source code. The reason that only a few bits have been leaked is b/c of the high risk of serious consequences (which would not exist if there were no copyright) for everyone involved in the leaking.
The terrorists win.
And none of them wittier than my original dumb FP.
Do they mean "grep"?
A lot of people do not realize that they base many decisions (such as car purchases) on quirks of personality, or prejudices against certain people, rather than on the merits of the proposition in question. It's good that you recognize this. It would be even better if you would tried to stop doing it...
Alas, it's almost 100% certain that Darl will parlay this experience in the limelight into a cushy job at some other company when SCO's gone. Things are so screwed up...
I personally think Darl should get jail time. I consider him no better than Lay or Skilling.
But I do think that their investors should know they're spending millions trying to prevent something that might conceivably be driving profits *up.
There are studies "proving" that downloads hurt sales, and other studies that "prove" the opposite. There are so many variables at work that a short-term study will never suffice. By that I mean a study over filesharing patterns over less than 10 years.
I don't claim that my experience/anecdotal research constitutes "proof" that filesharing enhances music sales on a global scale. That would be silly -- almost but not quite as silly as the assertions of the "content owners" that this casual infringement costs them $billions/yr.
Subscribe to emusic. Download plain old mp3s and do what you want with ' em.
"DRM is intended to prevent or reduce casual copyright infringement"
I'd like to point out -- though most people here probably know -- that casual copyright infringement very likely improves the bottom line of the music publisher. E.g. my friend casually gives me a mix CD of tunes he thinks I'd like, I'm X% more likely to buy one of those artists' discs later. That X% increase has a monetary value in the aggregate. I'd love a link to a scientific study of that value.
The second-greatest day will be when they report that sales dropped off not the slightest bit b/c of this change DRM only annoys purchasers. Not "pirates"