| |
"richard marchetti" <blueofnoon@aol.com> wrote in message
news:HGuL5F.1xox@lugnet.com...
>
> I don't see [DRM] 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.
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 in this system. I think
once we get DRM in computers, even if it starts off perfectly well, it'll
eventually erode towards something that will make us sorry we ever
incorporated it in the first place.
> 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."
Yes. If the DRM's sole purpose was to do this, I wouldn't mind it at all.
But like I said, Pandora will come along... if she has no box at all, she
can't open it. On the other hand, with this scheme, unless there is some
kind of DRM, the impatient script-kiddie will come along and hack his system
so he can play files that are currently "status = out."
> As far as keeping things "status = out" via a pause button or something...
Yeah, I'm sure there's probably a good solution that wouldn't even require
DRM... putting a time limit on them like you said sounds like it'd work.
> 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.
Yeah, it's definitely a double-edged sword! (And to be honest, you've made
me consider the other edge, which I hadn't really done.) If we were to
somehow end up in the place I've suggested, it's true: most artists (book
makers, music makers, some movie makers, even lego designers) would not be
able to make enough money to survive from their art. Society would become
so that you must do labor to survive and art would become hobby. That won't
work today, but perhaps when we're living in Star Trek times, when all
simple needs are met via technology...
> 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.
I refuse to believe what Brittany Spears does is "art." ;) Call me a
communist, but I don't see it as such a problem if people can't make big
money and live in mansions for creating art (even great art). On the other
hand, if they can't even earn enough to live in a decent house and raise a
family, that's very bad. The bottom line is, if the system I've described
were to actually be implemented, many things wouldn't change, but many great
things would never be created. You've made me think about that. As we say
in Unreal Tourney, nice shot. ;)
> 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?
I don't know. What motiviates a good writer? Sounds like you're right,
though. Writing takes a long time. It's not the kind of thing you can do
for a hobby and if you can't make money doing it for a living, you probably
wouldn't do it at all. Then again, people find the time to do what they
love. I really don't know what kind of an effect all this would have.
> 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.
Often with long posts, I don't read the whole thing first, I just reply one
paragraph at a time. So it looks like we came to the same conclusion.
-- Tom
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Possession
|
| (...) No argument there, it was just an example of wealth from someone whose supposed career is making music. Her real career is more truthfully hypnotizing youth culture with her boobs so that they buy into a fake Barbie & Ken music fantasy of (...) (21 years ago, 22-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Possession
|
| 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 (...) (21 years ago, 21-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
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
|
|
|
|
