11–20 of 26 posts
> The purpose of DRM is not to prevent copyright violations. > The purpose of DRM is to give content providers leverage against creators of playback devices. The second is necessary because the first cannot be achieved directly.
> B. Columbia make a movie. Netflix buys the rights to distribute this movie from Columbia It's interesting that Columbia is treated as a plural subject while Netflix is singular. I'm pretty sure it's a Britishism to treat a firm as plural, but why doesn't Netflix get the same treatment? Earlier in the piece, Paramount gets the plural treatment.
I know there have been gigabytes of text written about copyright and restriction technologies/laws surrounding them. I think I will mention another area which has not been discussed. What is the US chief export? Machines and Electronic equipment(1). However, one thing glaringly absent from that list is digital media (Music, movies, programs). I would argue that digital media is one of the most important exports, and…
If I was a country who provided mostly goods and services I don't think I would be so easily convinced.
Culture is not created in silos. Culture is created by free exchange (which is not to be confused with "no things should be paid for"). DRM is just a speedbump on the road.
I know there have been gigabytes of text written about copyright and restriction technologies/laws surrounding them. I think I will mention another area which has not been discussed. What is the US chief export? Machines and Electronic equipment(1). However, one thing glaringly absent from that list is digital media (Music, movies, programs). I would argue that digital media is one of the most important exports, and…
We create a lot of digital goods so we should convince other countries that they are extremely valuable and must be made exclusive? If I was a country who provided mostly goods and services I don't think I would be so easily convinced.
It's true that developing nations (read: China) often don't respect other countries' IP rights. The US didn't either when it was still young. But eventually countries get out of that catch-up phase and start actually inventing things of their own that they want protected.
Culture is not created in silos. Culture is created by free exchange (which is not to be confused with "no things should be paid for"). DRM is just a speedbump on the road.
That was old style culture (mostly alive until pre 90s). Today's culture IS created in silos, by large corporations.
Today even the "grassroots", "viral" and "crowdsourced" upstarts embrace most of the ideas and styles of the silo world.
(One can substitute relative and in flux percentages --whereas I speak in absolutes for rhetorical effect--, but my main point I believe remains: today, more than ever, lots of "culture" is created in silos by large corporations).
> B. Columbia make a movie. Netflix buys the rights to distribute this movie from Columbia It's interesting that Columbia is treated as a plural subject while Netflix is singular. I'm pretty sure it's a Britishism to treat a firm as plural, but why doesn't Netflix get the same treatment? Earlier in the piece, Paramount gets the plural treatment.
At a guess, because the "ix" makes an "s" sound. So, in the writer's mind, it sounds like a plural i.e. "Netflicks".
Columbia buys
Netflicks buyCulture is not created in silos. Culture is created by free exchange (which is not to be confused with "no things should be paid for"). DRM is just a speedbump on the road.
Content is not just culture, it is also entertainment. Indeed, the kind of content that is protected by DRM is mostly entertainment, and not very much culture. There is no reason entertainment should be free nor is there really a positive social value in making it free. What is the positive externality to society from some kid being able to listen to the latest Nickelback album or play the latest Gears of War game fo…
The examples given paint a slightly different story.
The gist is that DRM is more a way to squeeze additional money out of those willing to pay for content than to keep content out of reach from those unwilling to pay.
Food for thought.
Link to regular Google+, not the obnoxious tiny-text basic one: https://plus.google.com/107429617152575897589/posts/iPmatxBY...
I actually like it. It's not that readable to begin with, sure, but it's still more content-friendly than the full, overloaded Google+ UI. And unlike the full UI, you can zoom in and/or apply custom CSS (Try Safari's Reader), and it's also friendlier to low-bandwidth, screen readers, etc. I dunno, mostly playing devil's advocate here, but I think Google+ has some issues as a competitor for traditional blogging that t…