Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DRM Moves Ahead With HTML5 Specification

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #71
    Originally posted by dee. View Post
    No it's not. It's simple: sharing is good. We teach it to our children all the time. We create these huge life lessons to our children about how they should share their toys with their friends, we read childrens books to them where the lesson is that sharing is good... and then they grow up a bit and they see something they like online, and they're like "hey, I should share this with my friend, she'll love it". And bam, your child is a criminal.
    Sharing what you have is good. Nobody teaches their children to share the other kids' toys. You make content, you share it: it's good. You make content, I share it: not so good.
    And then, there's economics 101 about property and how it is necessary for exchanges, but maybe that's too complicated for you and you are more comfortable with kindergarten analogies.

    Originally posted by dee. View Post
    So what we're actually trying to do is put our money where our mouth is, do more than just give lip service about sharing, practice what we preach. If we teach our kids that sharing is good, surely we should lead by example? Surely we should also implement in the real world laws and infrastructures that allow sharing?

    And there's nothing counterproductive about that. Some content producers do all they can to fight the idea of sharing... so what? We don't have to pander to them. They have to pander to US, because we are the ones where their money comes from. The onus is on THEM to develop their service to be so good that people will find it easier, more convenient, to buy from them than pirate their content through torrent. Or alternatively, build their business model around sharing, so that it doesn't matter if people share their content - or better yet, take advantage of that sharing network, use that distribution network for free, get free hype, monetize later (or before, whatever works).
    If I understand correctly, your business model is to sell the infrastructure and not the content. That's exactly how piracy works right now, with usenet providers, svn providers, torrent sites, streaming sites monetizing a service so convenient that people pay them (so yes, it works). But how do the content provider could compete with them when it has to create the same infrastructure, and create content at the same time?
    Also, what worth is hype, when you can't sell your products? Do you think miniature toys can pay for a movie or a AAA game? Oh wait they can't, you can print the miniature at home with your 3D printer.

    Comment


    • #72
      Originally posted by erendorn View Post
      Sharing what you have is good. Nobody teaches their children to share the other kids' toys.
      Thank you.

      When I was a kid, if I shared something with a friend I didn't have it at the same time they did (unless we were playing together with it), ie sharing involved an element of sacrifice.

      Sharing via duplication, ie letting my friend have something while I keep it for my own use as well, is not the same thing at all.

      It's probably too late, but we should think about using different terms for "taking turns using a single copy" and "giving copies to other people". Using the same word for two completely different things can trick smart people into making bad analogies.
      Last edited by bridgman; 05-13-2013, 07:54 AM.

      Comment


      • #73
        Originally posted by erendorn View Post
        Sharing what you have is good. Nobody teaches their children to share the other kids' toys. You make content, you share it: it's good. You make content, I share it: not so good.
        And then, there's economics 101 about property and how it is necessary for exchanges, but maybe that's too complicated for you and you are more comfortable with kindergarten analogies.
        Maybe debating in a civil and rational manner is too complicated to you and you are more comfortable slinging ad-hominems and juvenile insults.


        If I understand correctly, your business model is to sell the infrastructure and not the content. That's exactly how piracy works right now, with usenet providers, svn providers, torrent sites, streaming sites monetizing a service so convenient that people pay them (so yes, it works). But how do the content provider could compete with them when it has to create the same infrastructure, and create content at the same time?
        Also, what worth is hype, when you can't sell your products? Do you think miniature toys can pay for a movie or a AAA game? Oh wait they can't, you can print the miniature at home with your 3D printer.
        There are plenty of business models that can work with free sharing. You just have to think outside the narrow box of the dominant paradigm. Crowdfunding, service based models, ad-funded content, donationware... the possibilities are endless. All that is needed is legalization of sharing for noncommercial purposes to give content producers the incentive to develop their business models. I've elaborated this in previous posts already and frankly, with the tone of your post, I get the impression that you're not exactly interested in discussing bona fide (that means: in good faith).

        Comment


        • #74
          Originally posted by erendorn View Post
          Sharing what you have is good. Nobody teaches their children to share the other kids' toys. You make content, you share it: it's good. You make content, I share it: not so good.
          So you tell your kids to produce their toys for themself or you buy it for them / give them money to buy it? Cause if the second one you teach them to share what they paid for, not what they made with their own hands.

          What most people here don't see is that free sharing already works. Guess what's my only income? Believe it or not: A Donate button! And I have a home, am just eating my breakfast and am browsing this forum with a high-speed internet connection with my high-end PC. I even have some luxury articles. Hell I even have enough money to give it to kickstarter projects / humble bundles and so on. As others said: You have to adapt to new technology, not trying to stop it.

          Now to the science-fiction (3d printers and such) some people here talk about: Tell me why a chair builder will need that much money in such a world (where money isn't that important anymore) ? Mom and dad give him this printer when he's young so he can print everything he needs. All he has to pay for is energy, maybe some kind of toner and maybe (if not printable, too) food. He just have to sell a few chairs for that, which he still will archive. In such a world creativity will be more important than working with your hands. Is that what you people fear?

          And, as others stated, too, free sharing (in form of piracy) is also happening all the time. Still no companies got bankrupt cause of it. It seems like the other way around: They even have enough money to fight against it. But at least some people are sane about that topic. Notch wrote a nice article about it: http://notch.tumblr.com/post/1121596...w-piracy-works

          Originally posted by dee. View Post
          People are selfish?
          From my experience of poorer times (living on the street and such) selfish people are rich and never where in such a situation for themself. People with less money and/or people who know how it feels to not have enough money to survive share what they can. I also give my money to poor people, sometimes I even sit me down to them and help them getting money from others. Also if I know a poor person good enough (ofc. there are black sheeps, too) I give them a sleeping place at my home.

          Comment


          • #75
            Originally posted by bridgman View Post
            Thank you.

            When I was a kid, if I shared something with a friend I didn't have it at the same time they did (unless we were playing together with it), ie sharing involved an element of sacrifice.

            Sharing via duplication, ie letting my friend have something while I keep it for my own use as well, is not the same thing at all.

            It's probably too late, but we should think about using different terms for "taking turns using a single copy" and "giving copies to other people". Using the same word for two completely different things can trick smart people into making bad analogies.
            With a non-scarce resource, it doesn't matter if it's shared by copying or otherwise.

            Comment


            • #76
              Originally posted by dee. View Post
              With a non-scarce resource, it doesn't matter if it's shared by copying or otherwise.
              I guess the question is whether you regard a creative work (song, movie, book, spiffy chair) duplicated against the wishes of the creator as a non-scarce resource.
              Last edited by bridgman; 05-13-2013, 08:44 AM.

              Comment


              • #77
                Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                I guess the question is whether you regard a creative work (song, movie, book) duplicated against the wishes of the creator as a non-scarce resource.
                Well it's actually pretty simple. It doesn't cost anything to copy a file. The expense of running a computer with xxx-GB harddrive is the same whether that harddrive contains 50 files or 500 files. So when the file (content) is already produced, then it is non-scarce. The scarcity exists only in the production of the content, which is why the monetization should also apply to the production, not the distribution.

                Here's a hypothetical: say we come up with AI that can produce endless content for us for free. Would that need to be restricted as well, so that corporations with pre-existing business models don't go out of business? If not, why should we create artificial scarcity anywhere where scarcity doesn't naturally exist, simply because some gatekeepers need it to survive? Why should we protect the profits of corporations who refuse to update their business models to cope with changing paradigms? We don't owe them a living.

                Comment


                • #78
                  Originally posted by dee. View Post
                  If not, why should we create artificial scarcity anywhere where scarcity doesn't naturally exist, simply because some gatekeepers need it to survive? Why should we protect the profits of corporations who refuse to update their business models to cope with changing paradigms? We don't owe them a living.
                  This is where it gets sticky. You don't necessarily own the corporations a living, but you do owe the individuals doing the creative work a living and today those individuals generally earn their living through corporations.

                  Unless we have an alternative to the current corporate model that is demonstrably ready to scale up to the same size as what we have today (in terms of the number of creative people it supports and the quality of that support), one can argue that killing off or even seriously wounding the current system might be premature.
                  Last edited by bridgman; 05-13-2013, 09:27 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #79
                    Originally posted by dee. View Post
                    There are plenty of business models that can work with free sharing. You just have to think outside the narrow box of the dominant paradigm. Crowdfunding, service based models, ad-funded content, donationware... the possibilities are endless. All that is needed is legalization of sharing for noncommercial purposes to give content producers the incentive to develop their business models. I've elaborated this in previous posts already and frankly, with the tone of your post, I get the impression that you're not exactly interested in discussing bona fide (that means: in good faith).
                    But all these business models already work as is, there is no need for any legalization for them. And most of these business models (crowdfunding excluded) still rely entirely on copyright laws: because whatever you produce, I can just pull your contents and display/offer them on my own site, with adds, a donation button or services, for cheaper than you (although arguably with less revenue too as a second hand platform, but that's not even certain).

                    Comment


                    • #80
                      Well, I get where you're coming from, dee. Yes, if we'd have replicators, then carpenters wouldn't exist in the first place, because they no longer create anything of value. However, patents would still exist ? if you create something new and never heard of before, you would want to benefit from it. Everyone could use it, but would have to obtain a patent license.

                      About the cinemas and films, I get your idea as well. They could make open cinemas, but they wouldn't earn anything from it, and if they want to, they have to share their profits as usual. And it's something you can't pirate. I suppose that most of the income for the movie industry comes from the cinemas, and if NC copying was legalised, while they provided no DRM, easy distribution and some extra token for buying/donating, not much would change from what we have now in terms of profits, but it would be much easier for consumers. I suppose the same goes for the music industry, where the main source of income is live concerts. Though we'd still have problems with games, as game developers don't have such an additional income source. Same with software in general.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X