| |
Tom:
I found much of your post deeply interesting and thought provoking. Your idea
of the giant archive/database is truly compelling and shows the enormous flaw in
the many schemes that publishers are pursuing. Sure, the publishers are
pursuing the idea for money, but what if someone pursued the idea for the public
good? Really interesting stuff...
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Sciortino wrote:
| |
This could get messy quick, which is why it’s so interesting. I
suspect in the end, the biggest problem here would not be if it’s legal or
illegal. It would be the record companies trying to push it towards illegal
so that they can sell you a cd of the LP you already own.
|
I believe this is the current state of affairs. Sure, they make money if you
buy modern pop tripe, but it’s the back catalogue that’s the real gravy. Or so
I understand.
| |
Yes, there are technical snags. This system would require DRM on computers >
(so that no one could listen to a song that’s already “checked out”) and DRM >
is bad.
|
I don’t see it as automatically bad, unless it’s purpose is to also defeat fair
use. Then I agree that it’s bad, and unfair -- and much of the DRM out there is
bad DRM, and ultimately actionable in my opinion.
On the other hand, I think that in your scenario all you are proposing is that
an item in a database be flagged as “status = out” and for the item to therefore
be unavailable until it becomes “status = in.”
As far as keeping things “status = out” via a pause button or something, this
could be prevented by an automatic system that allows an item to be checked out
for an absolute maximum of 50% again the time it would take to view or listen to
a databased item -- in other words, a 2 hour movie is available for a maximum of
3 hours, or until it is checked back in: “status = in.” The only thing that
would be different would be eBooks which could follow the current standard 2-3
weeks check out time unless renewed, etc.
| |
In fact (oh yes, I’m only getting started here... ;) I dare say that
today’s file swapping practically does work this way.
|
I think I have to agree with that assessment -- there is no way that we are
ultilizing more copies at a given time than are actually out there.
I’m a little disturbed by what this might mean to the creation of art or
informational media. I do think that people have the right to earn something
for their labors and I am not so bent on the entry of everything immediately
into the commons that we disparage the arts and progress overall.
The reality is that very few people actually make any serious money creating
novels, artwork, or even stuff like acting, or software engineering -- I don’t
mean just making a living, I mean the extravagant wealth of say people like
Harold Robbins, Stephen King, Anne Rice, Picasso, Brittany Spears etc.
And for the library to work, at least some copies would have to be purchased to
stock it’s supplies of a given item -- some but not probably that many copies. I
dunno, it would take away the thrill and possibility of getting rich quick
through writing a bestseller or the like. Is that a good thing?
And see, here’s the thing: music is often used as a kind of promotion for what
the artist really does to make money: perform for the price of many, many
tickets. In the case of say a book, the book is the end itself -- there is no
way for you to have enjoyed the book for free and then remunerate the author
through some subsequent event or activity. Same thing with movies, works of
“fine” art etc. -- anything not predicated on performance as it’s main form. If
you can get the thing for free, not too many people are going to want to pay for
it. Of course, P2P has put us on this road already. So it’s a problem already.
I dunno. Maybe we will eventually have to move away from capitalism as we know
it and more towards something more like Star Trek -- whatever the heck their
economy is based on.
| |
Yes, there’s no escape. I’m definitely now part of off-topic.debate. So
this is where all the spacers go after dark, eh Hop-Frog?
|
Spacers?! Lugnuts, more like it. Lugnet nutters.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Possession
|
| "richard marchetti" <blueofnoon@aol.com> wrote in message news:HGuL5F.1xox@lugnet.com... (...) defeat fair (...) there is (...) I say DRM is bad because I just can't imagine a form of DRM that doesn't expand outwards away from the purposes outlined (...) (21 years ago, 21-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Possession
|
| (...) Do IP rights have to be bought the way they are now? The reason this library idea is very cool is because it follows the law of today, yet gets more media to more people...right? Why not just set up this giant media database but charge (...) (21 years ago, 22-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Possession
|
| "richard marchetti" <blueofnoon@aol.com> wrote in message news:HGrsA7.BA2@lugnet.com... (...) animated (...) own it (...) friend (...) seeing as (...) the (...) A fascinating case. Personally, I say you own it since you payed money for it, but I (...) (21 years ago, 20-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
31 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
