This is the whole basis of the adversarial justice system in the US, and other common law countries. The Judge is a neutral party, and only hears what the parties put forward. Each party is expected to act in his own self interest and present the best case that they can.
I have always thought that this was a failing of this system. Those with more resources naturally can present a better case, if only because they can hire lawyers, who know the minutae of law better than anyone else, simply because that's their job. The litigant in person doesn't, presents a terrible and throws himself at the mercy of the court.. the court which is just, and fair, and only hears what the parties put forward themselves.
Compare this to the inquisitorial system, where the Judge actually investigates, and takes a far more active role in the system, rather than simply sitting back and being a neutral party.
Of course, that also opens up the possibility that the Courts will be corrupt, and that the Judges will persue arguments based on their own prejudices, and so on..
It might be, as in life, that poor people are simply fucked. *shrug*
It's not true to say that we can either have a monolithic music industry with mass produced pap or small bands of indie musicians who tour. DRM isn't forced on anyone, and there are people out there (like Lemon Demon) who do release their music online, free, as some sort of advertising. You don't need to belong to a monolith.
There are no indie bands who are more profitable than the monoliths. There are no indie bands who even approach being as profitable as the monoliths.
Even in China, where you would expect piracy to drive monoliths to an early grave, artists who belong to a recording studio (more properly known as a publicity studio, I guess) do far, far better than those who aren't.
Why?
Conjecture:
Now, I dislike DRM as much as the next person. But simply saying that "your market model is outdated - go away" also means that you lose the products of this business model. You or I may not/like/ the current products on offer, and would prefer show off listening to unknown bands live as some kind of badge, but realise that we're in the minority.
Demand for mass marketed music far outstrips indies. Sad fact, but true. That's not even pointing out entire genres who can't practicably tour line, like electronica. Simply saying "change the music model and let the mass market pop die" doesn't mean that we don't actually lose something along the way. You might think we aren't the worse off for losing mass market pop, but millions of dollars will just disappear.
In short, money says that people want the monoliths to exists.
Now, some of you might have read all that and said "well tough cookies, evolution biatch", but the problem here isn't new, actually, in fact, us in the niche corners of society have probably experienced it more than anyone else - the problem here is monetisation.
It's strange that a mass market item meets the monetisation problem, but that's how technology rolls, I guess. Small retailers are losing out to big box stores. They have a unique service, but not enough people care for it to remain a viable business. This is especially problematic with bookstores. We get our books cheaper, but we lose a unique service, because nobody can figure out how to stop people from getting reccomendations and going next door to pick it up at half off. I'd argue we're all worse off for it, but there it is.
Contractual is not the same as tort, which is what is being discussed here. If one of the customers' data was stolen despite the encryption, and was used to cause him harm, say by draining his bank account through identity theft, then he has the right to sue to company.
The company then will point to th encryption they did, and say that "Well, we did the reasonable steps of following VISA's guidelines". And the courts will then say "Hmm, okay, the reasonable person in your company would have assumed that following VISA's guidelines are enough. So you do not have to pay damages."
Note that it's not the mere fact that they followed the VISA guidelines that got them off the hook, it's beacuse the reasonable person would have followed VISA's guidelines, and he might even assume that VISA's guidelines were effective, because, well... it's VISA!
On the other hand, if a company dealt with far more sensitive information, say, the complete biometrics of people, such that identity fraud is inevitable if the data got out, then perhaps a reasonable person would NOT think that the VISA guidelines were enough! And therefore the company (artificial person, really) would be liable in tort even if they followed VISA guidelines, because simply following VISA guidelines isn't reasonable in the circumstances.
Let's see if the telcos can still use and maintain their "traffic shaping" in the face of Microsoft. If it's not good for anything, at least the 800 pound gorrila is on our side this time..
Slashdot Mirror
This is the whole basis of the adversarial justice system in the US, and other common law countries. The Judge is a neutral party, and only hears what the parties put forward. Each party is expected to act in his own self interest and present the best case that they can. I have always thought that this was a failing of this system. Those with more resources naturally can present a better case, if only because they can hire lawyers, who know the minutae of law better than anyone else, simply because that's their job. The litigant in person doesn't, presents a terrible and throws himself at the mercy of the court.. the court which is just, and fair, and only hears what the parties put forward themselves. Compare this to the inquisitorial system, where the Judge actually investigates, and takes a far more active role in the system, rather than simply sitting back and being a neutral party. Of course, that also opens up the possibility that the Courts will be corrupt, and that the Judges will persue arguments based on their own prejudices, and so on.. It might be, as in life, that poor people are simply fucked. *shrug*
Will the real Jonathan Zdziarski please stand up?
Observations:
/like/ the current products on offer, and would prefer show off listening to unknown bands live as some kind of badge, but realise that we're in the minority.
It's not true to say that we can either have a monolithic music industry with mass produced pap or small bands of indie musicians who tour. DRM isn't forced on anyone, and there are people out there (like Lemon Demon) who do release their music online, free, as some sort of advertising. You don't need to belong to a monolith.
There are no indie bands who are more profitable than the monoliths. There are no indie bands who even approach being as profitable as the monoliths.
Even in China, where you would expect piracy to drive monoliths to an early grave, artists who belong to a recording studio (more properly known as a publicity studio, I guess) do far, far better than those who aren't.
Why?
Conjecture:
Now, I dislike DRM as much as the next person. But simply saying that "your market model is outdated - go away" also means that you lose the products of this business model. You or I may not
Demand for mass marketed music far outstrips indies. Sad fact, but true. That's not even pointing out entire genres who can't practicably tour line, like electronica. Simply saying "change the music model and let the mass market pop die" doesn't mean that we don't actually lose something along the way. You might think we aren't the worse off for losing mass market pop, but millions of dollars will just disappear.
In short, money says that people want the monoliths to exists.
Now, some of you might have read all that and said "well tough cookies, evolution biatch", but the problem here isn't new, actually, in fact, us in the niche corners of society have probably experienced it more than anyone else - the problem here is monetisation.
It's strange that a mass market item meets the monetisation problem, but that's how technology rolls, I guess. Small retailers are losing out to big box stores. They have a unique service, but not enough people care for it to remain a viable business. This is especially problematic with bookstores. We get our books cheaper, but we lose a unique service, because nobody can figure out how to stop people from getting reccomendations and going next door to pick it up at half off. I'd argue we're all worse off for it, but there it is.
Contractual is not the same as tort, which is what is being discussed here. If one of the customers' data was stolen despite the encryption, and was used to cause him harm, say by draining his bank account through identity theft, then he has the right to sue to company. The company then will point to th encryption they did, and say that "Well, we did the reasonable steps of following VISA's guidelines". And the courts will then say "Hmm, okay, the reasonable person in your company would have assumed that following VISA's guidelines are enough. So you do not have to pay damages." Note that it's not the mere fact that they followed the VISA guidelines that got them off the hook, it's beacuse the reasonable person would have followed VISA's guidelines, and he might even assume that VISA's guidelines were effective, because, well... it's VISA! On the other hand, if a company dealt with far more sensitive information, say, the complete biometrics of people, such that identity fraud is inevitable if the data got out, then perhaps a reasonable person would NOT think that the VISA guidelines were enough! And therefore the company (artificial person, really) would be liable in tort even if they followed VISA guidelines, because simply following VISA guidelines isn't reasonable in the circumstances.
Let's see if the telcos can still use and maintain their "traffic shaping" in the face of Microsoft. If it's not good for anything, at least the 800 pound gorrila is on our side this time..