- 124comments
- 39comments
- 22comments
- 427comments
- 176comments
- —discuss
- 11comments
- 49comments
- 543comments
- 16comments
- 94comments
- 1comments
- 29comments
- 105comments
- 126comments
- 186comments
- 1comments
- 33comments
- 301comments
- 360comments
- 23comments
- 18comments
- 89comments
- 23comments
- 9comments
- 50comments
- 4comments
- 44comments
- 7comments
- 122comments
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 this low-tech version highlights.
Too bad the respective URL's don't appear to share common substrings/identifiers.
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.
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 for free? Because handwaving about "culture" aside, that's what we're really talking about here.
The discussion about culture in the context of DRM is far from "handwaving." Culture and entertainment have always been intertwined; don't let high culture snobs tell you otherwise.
I agree. I think the GP is tackling an artificial construct / separation.
In fact, these days I think of much communication, including "entertainment", as "cultural programming".
As such, it and its use (and citation, reuse, refactoring...) are central to our lives and to society's development (or lack thereof).
Yes, Gears of War is "central to our lives and to society's development."
The vast majority of the content protected by DRM is morally indistinguishable from acts at a strip club--pure, base, entertainment. And I don't see many people calling for those to be free, even though it costs a strip club owner nothing to let extra people look in through the window (i.e. zero marginal cost of reproduction).
Have you noticed how... "mainstream" porn stars have become in the last decade (at least, in U.S. society/media)?
Whether or not one agrees with a particular element, I think such influences are significant.
And, to extent this point a bit further and perhaps offer a contrasting viewpoint, for all the "objectification" of women that this prevalence may be promoting -- and I'm not saying there aren't some fairly pernicious influences, in this regard -- it also seems to be shaking off some of the cultural taboos about speaking openly about sex.
The outcome of such influences is not simple.
And being able to dialog about them is essential to understanding them. Which includes access that is not overly, artificially constrained. And which includes citation and reuse within the arts, for example. As well, in reporting, peer-to-peer (e.g. sharing game play videos), etc.
Once such influences have been released into culture, I don't agree with a private party having an exclusive hand on the spigot to just turn off access to and so informed conversation about such influences.
Reasonable compensation is one matter. Control of cultural dialog is another.
Did you ever go see a Batman movie? A Superman movie? Iron Man? The Avengers movie? Those weren't considered "culture" as recently as the 1970s. Stop.
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).
Wow. That will come to a shock to every writer out there who bet their life on the work they were doing unseen by anyone else.
The second is necessary because the first cannot be achieved directly.
The second is not an indirect means of achieving the first.
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".
That would make the opposite right.
Some creators have business modeled themselves into a corner that requires control over the user's experience. That's unfortunate.
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 this requires copyright to enforce effectively.
I can easily imagine that every device we sell could be reduced to very effective 3d models (and circuit models, as well as code to use). In that end, everything we would export is the information how to reproduce. We RepRappers already freely trade and remix designs made by others. For us, a 50kB scad file is more than enough to reproduce the next cool object.
I can understand the US stance towards copyright, although I heartily disagree with them. Most of the industry requires a strong international copyright and protections because somebody else could copy their designs and make it without R&D cost.
(1) http://www.worldsrichestcountries.com/top_us_exports.html
I'm not sure how what you're saying relates to the article...?
I was mentioning something that was orthogonal to the article. DRM is mainly about protecting revenues. Now, what revenues? To make sure the end user pays for each and every use of a copyrighted X. DRM is only the means to enforce copyright.
Our country is a huge exporter of copyrighted goods. Now, much of those have physical objects on them as well. But still, I would argue our chief export IS the information how to build/do.
I sit in a very precarious world of current 3d printing. I'm old enough to have seen "dont coppy that floppy" by MC Hammer. I also saw the Napster empire build up and come a-crumbling down. We all saw what our DOJ is willing to do to shut down an evil piracy center (MegaUpload). We'll skip the fact that the FBI used the fact that they asked MU to save said pirated files, and then used that as the basis.
But what of 3d printing? That turns all of my consumer-ish 'whoops it's broken' to download/design failed part, print said part! The fun part is those gears can be patented and/or copyrighted. At the Midwest Reprap Festival, there was a person who was talking about a gear set made for a vacuum manufacturer that was known for having NO spare parts anywhere. Someone online, made a gear library for these non-standard gears for this vacuum.
I see the copyright argument and fight over 3d printing to make the Napster one look like a cakewalk. And I havent even discussed DefCad yet, with print your own Guns. That's a teergrube all in itself.
Guns
being defined by the lower receiver, and not any pressurized or load bearing part. This is defined by the US govt.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.
The bulk of new creation in the future is going to be in IP, not physical goods. Most other countries have their own IP that they want protected as well.
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.
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 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.