I don't know; Virginia is still a pretty conservative state when it comes to morals and such. I think we have a LAW against stuff like that.
The problem with DRM, copyright and the rest is that it is all one sided with the consumer having few if any rights.
70+ years for copyright is too much. Not being able to legally copy a DVD I’ve bought and paid for is wrong.
Accept DRM? Not sure I really care. My computer habits don’t include movies or music. (I have been a Linux user since about 1995)
BUT, the author suggests something that makes a lot of sense. If the “artist” had a medium whereby they could collect their fees they would no longer need the “Music Industry”.
The computer as a tool has made that VERY Possible.
That's not what it was created for. It was created to protect dying business models and to force end users to continue to purchase 'rights' to the same as many times as possible.
While I'd like the option to have Netflix on my Linux HTPC, I don't think DRM on Linux is feasible. In order for DRM to be effective, it needs to effectively control the entire system. The problem is that so-called 'content owners' are not the boss of my Linux machines: I AM.
So, if there's a way to have some kind of self-contained DRM on the system that doesn't get in my way and only deals with Netflix, that's fine. However, if you think someone won't circumvent it in about 2 seconds flat, you've got another thing coming.
There is a problem when pirate material is superior to purchased material. DRM is only one facet to consider. Have you ever been forced to watch an unskippable preview before the movie? Pirates are never forced to watch the "Don't pirate this movie" blurb.
I will say this - the writer of this article makes his case very clearly, very logically, states his biases upfront, deals with some of the inherent contradictions and reasons his way to a conclusion. I wish I could write that well. He opens by saying he writes for a living - and then goes on to demonstrate the veracity of that statement!
DRM is not the law in many jurisdictions. DRM is the law under a hundred permutations in other jurisdictions. DRM is specifically illegal in a few jurisdictions.
As long as there isn’t a NWO controlling OS distribution, open source OSes can not keep pirates from compiling DRM free OSes in political borders of lax laws and lax enforcement.
If you keep extending copyrights every time Mickey Mouse is about to enter the public domain, that's the same thing as in-perpetuity.
Return it to 17 years and DRM is perfectly acceptable, but the government/corporate-complex will never accept that.
of the sales from a single Van Halen CD, the band splits about a dollar.
I'm guessing that "one dollar" was the same long before MP3's, Napster, or torrents. So that problem is the result of a bad deal that Eddie and the guys made when they signed the contract, and as far as DRM is concerned it's a red herring.
Van Halen's first few albums are 30+ years old now. Under a sane copyright law, they would by now be in the public domain.
Knives aren't inherently bad. But when you hand them to a murderer.....
Personally, I'm old school. When I bought a tape or record, I owned it and could do what I wished to. I could dub a backup, no questions asked, as long as I wasn't making more than one and trying to sell other copies. I still feel like that when I do pay for a song (which I haven't done in a while - more on that in a bit). I should be able to make what ever copies are necessary for me to enjoy my music... which includes being able to burn to my CD and have it on my laptop or mp3 player at the same time.
In all honesty, I have been so unimpressed with the main-stream music world for so long that I have stuck with indie music, such as Jamendo and Magnatune. Especially Jamendo, as it's free. No DRM is involved - this is a selling point, and I honestly have enjoyed getting gigs of music without all of the theatrics involved.
Shouldn't everyone ELSE get rid of it and stop putting themselves in the middle of a fight between their customers and third parties? I resent that I buy a product which then consumes PC resources I paid for to police my actions. If they want to police people, they should spend THEIR money to create technical protection on THEIR end of the process, but even then only if they can do so without inconveniencing legitimate customers or non-customers in even the slightest way.
It PRESUMES me at least potentially guilty and uses my resources (CPU cycles, RAM bytes and watts) to prevent me from doing something I was never going to do in the first place. I'm still waiting for my check from Microsoft and the RIAA to get reimbursed for bearing part of the cost of their war on pirates.
Another way to look at the same issue is to observe that Microsoft makes a product to sell to people. Any effort made to serve the interests of ANYONE but their customers makes them a bad vendor.
The problem is not with DRM, but with the copyright system behind DRM.
Way back when, the US created a law to insure the greatest benefit to the nation, business, the producer and the consumer. It was called the General Mining Act of 1872. Its intent was to “get America mining”, so that all Americans could benefit from the enormous proceeds of mining.
It was simple in concept. Anyone could stake a mining claim about anywhere, including on another person’s land; but, and here’s the important part, they had to “improve” that stake to the tune of $500 a year, or they would *lose* that stake, and anyone else could claim it.
The word “improve” meant either they *invested* $500 into the stake, or that they made a gross profit of $500 directly from it.
The Mining Act worked wonders. And America benefited from it.
Now compare that to copyright law. Copyright has been extended so far that it will long outlive content creators. And it is so flexible that copyright can be bought, sold and traded, so that those with nothing to do with its production can own it.
However, they do not have to “improve” it. For this reason, there are vast libraries of copyrighted work just sitting there, not available for sale or use by anyone but their owner. The nation, business, producers and consumers get nothing out of it. Its owners don’t want to be bothered to sell it, but they can prevent anyone else from doing so.
Now, if someone wants to create something and never sell it, fine. That is there prerogative. However, if they want to sell it for a while, and then just stop, and never sell it again, why should they have government protection?
Why should the government protect their “right” to *not* sell, or to prevent others from selling? This makes no sense. It does not stimulate creativity, it does not help the market, in fact it hinders the market.
So what should the copyright law be? Simply put: “Use it or lose it.”
Here is an example. Disney Corporation owns the copyright and trademark to the Mickey Mouse character, known around the world. And annually, Disney makes a huge amount of money from this well known character. And this is fine and dandy, and they should be able to keep this copyright and trademark as long as it keeps making them money.
However, Disney also owns the rights to their movie “Song of the South”. But because racers called it “racist”, Disney refuses to sell it anymore. Its last sale was in Japan, on Laser Disk. But because they own the copyright for the movie, nobody else can sell it, either.
And if someone converts a Japanese Laser Disk of the movie to DVD, they have committed an act of “piracy”. Why is that?
Solely because Disney retains its “rights” to something they refuse to sell. Because Disney has been given government protection over a product they refuse to sell.
Which denies that product to America, business, producers and consumers.
This is why copyright law, trademark law, even patent law needs to be reevaluated. I’ll note that of these, the most insidious might be those companies whose sole business is to buy patents, then sit on them, hoping to sue other companies that inadvertently use them in their own products.
They “toil not, neither do they spin”, but just sit there hoping to either demand huge royalties from those who *have* to use that product or procedure; or to sue those who invent it on their own, not knowing it has already been patented.
In other words, they parasite other businesses, hurting producers and consumers in the process. So why on earth is the government giving them a license to do so?
They've even published a bunch of their novels online for free downloads, and have discovered that, rather than decreasing sales for a particular book, posting them on the web has actually increased sales of the books, series, or author involved. How exactly does that work? Well, perhaps if you assume that your customers are mostly honest folk willing to give value for value, you do two things.
1) You introduce people to authors that they'd not have dropped $20+ for a hardback or even $8 for a paperback.If they like what they read, they are now likely to seek out that author and buy other works of his.
2) You generate goodwill with your customers. I know that since Baen first hooked me into the 1632 series, with their free download of their books, I've spent a lot of money buying others of the series, in hardback, paperback, and in the electronic only offerings as well.
When I'm looking for things at a bookstore, if I have a choice between two books that I'm equally interested in reading, and one is a Baen book, I know where I'll go because I apprecaite folks that treat me right.
Not unless the DRM is open-source.
Whether software on Linux uses DRM is irrelevant. The problem is that Linux itself should never have DRM since it absolutely undermines freedom. But, Linux being open and free, it can undermine any DRM through modification of the kernel and drivers, intercepting any stream, so don’t expect much DRM software on top of Linux.