Warner, Fox Create Portable SD, USB-Based DRM

[eddieroolz]

No. Just no.

 

[wiyosaya]

[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]Could be. I'll bet this is going to be a revolutionary thing, not evolutionary. But I don't think it's even close to the tipping point yet. I wouldn't expect an industry to work to put itself out of business (I think this is the only business of content providers who are not creators), so they will probably just squeeze out what they can while they can.[/citation]
Personally, I think that the industry is afraid it will go out of business, however, I think that is highly unlikely that it will actually go out of business. I think that acting out of that fear causes the actions of the industry to be extreme.

I think the industry will exist in some form or another, no matter what happens. There is a demand for the content, and I think that demand will never die. As such, the industry will continue to exist to satisfy that demand.

To be successful in 12-step programs, one has to come to the realization that one can only control the actions of one's self, and one cannot control the actions of others. I'll cite that as another reason that I think that DRM is the least desirable of methods to use because it attempts control of the actions of others.

In my opinion, those who steal are far outnumbered by those who don't. Those who don't steal see DRM as offensive, and wonder why they are treated as criminals when they, in fact, do nothing criminal. From this viewpoint, I see DRM as targeting a minority of content consumers, however, legal content consumers are targeted as well even if that targeting is unintentional.

And yes, I would love to see a revolutionary change in paradigm - so, I agree with you on that point. Sometimes, as I see it, all it takes is a shift in viewpoint. Perhaps the industry should be looking at this as an opportunity rather than a plague to be avoided.

I also agree that the industry is not yet at that requisite tipping point. In my opinion, all it will take is one creative exec to step back and find the opportunity rather than the plague.

 

[lamorpa]

wiyosaya:

One thing about these discussions I never understand. I believe it is important to make the distinction that copyright violation is a crime, and I get a lot of flak for it. People try to split hairs using the steal/theft definition dodge, or the not-a physical-object-so-its-not-stolen dodge, etc., and, mostly rage about the suggestion that it is a crime (which it most certainly is by the laws currently on the books). Be that is it may. It doesn't keep me up at night. People strongly believe in their vigilantism and use what they feel is an unfair or undesirable situation to justify their actions.

One thing I have never seen one single time: Someone who believes they sometimes must illegally download so they have flexibility to view/listen in their own way, but also believe that copyrights should be respected as much as possible, and makes every effort to pay (or pay into a general fund) for the items they have acquired. And here is where the problem starts. Without question, the vast majority of illegal downloaders are merely looking to get something for free (even if they could afford it), so they're really just, at best, hypocrites. They would rip off anyone. Even the original artists, etc. I don't see anyone railing against this. The MPAA and RIAA can see this too. I can certainly understand the inconvenience of DRM, but no one has ever tried to start the "Respect Copyrights Alliance" and get on a list that can be waved in the face of the RIAA. Why do you think that is (and by the way, the answer to this question is not, "the RIAA and MPAA are all a-holes", that's not an answer, it's just hatred)

 

[wiyosaya]

[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]wiyosaya:One thing about these discussions I never understand. I believe it is important to make the distinction that copyright violation is a crime, and I get a lot of flak for it.[/citation]
I suspect that the vast majority of people understand that fact, and reminding them of such is something that I see as patronizing. If someone obviously states otherwise, educating them is something I would consider acceptable.
[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]And here is where the problem starts. Without question, the vast majority of illegal downloaders are merely looking to get something for free (even if they could afford it), so they're really just, at best, hypocrites. They would rip off anyone.[/citation]
So here's the scientific side of me. Is this simply an observation of yours, or do you have the data to back this up? What you are suggesting is at odds with the conclusions of this survey conducted by the BBC. This survey suggests that 20-percent, 1 in 5, of people who download illegally are looking for free content; however it also suggests that 4 in 5, legally buy the content they illegally downloaded; this is the preview aspect I spoke of.
[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]I can certainly understand the inconvenience of DRM, but no one has ever tried to start the "Respect Copyrights Alliance" and get on a list that can be waved in the face of the RIAA. Why do you think that is (and by the way, the answer to this question is not, "the RIAA and MPAA are all a-holes", that's not an answer, it's just hatred)[/citation]
Though what is in parenthesis is something I consider somewhat patronizing, my answer is that I honestly don't know.

If I speculate, I think the answer would lie somewhere along the lines of that the 4 in 5 pay for what they downloaded and always intended to, therefore, they see themselves as respecting the copyright - so why start such an alliance. The 1 in 5 would certainly not be interested in such an alliance since the BBC survey suggests that one of the possible reasons they do not pay is because they are looking for something for free. Again, this is speculation.

 

[lamorpa]

[citation][nom]wiyosaya[/nom]I suspect that the vast majority of people understand that fact, and reminding them of such is something that I see as patronizing. If someone obviously states otherwise, educating them is something I would consider acceptable.[/citation]
I only ever respond to someone who is making a statement in which they clearly imply that are downloading and somehow believe it is not stealing for some self serving reason. I merely correct or add to their sentence to make the statement describe what is actually going on. What follows is what you see here. I have never had any response other than angry cries of how wrong I am (which I am not. There is no questions that it is a crime).

[citation][nom]wiyosaya[/nom]So here's the scientific side of me. Is this simply an observation of yours, or do you have the data to back this up?[/citation]
I'm basing it on the responses I universally get, but I guess it's not a broad based study.

[citation][nom]wiyosaya[/nom]Though what is in parenthesis is something I consider somewhat patronizing, my answer is that I honestly don't know.[/citation]
Sorry. Didn't mean to be patronizing. The statement wasn't really directed at you.

In any case (with no study to base it on), either the commenters in forums like this are not representative (I see a 99% stating they should be able to download for free based on the dodges I previously stated), or most people do, somehow, pay for the things they acquire. I still think is has been observed that there is a direct correlation between copyright enforcement and reduction in illegal downloading, meaning that the reverse would be true. I really wonder if the BBC study included iTunes users which diluted the smaller, but significant number of illegal, non-iTunes music and movie downloaders.

Again, if there are all these people who want to make sure they are paying for the content they download, some of which can only be illegally downloaded, how come not one of them has proposed or tried to set up even just a place to make contributions that are only used to defend those who are caught against charges that they feel are unfair or out of scale with the crime?

 

[wiyosaya]

[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]Again, if there are all these people who want to make sure they are paying for the content they download, some of which can only be illegally downloaded, how come not one of them has proposed or tried to set up even just a place to make contributions that are only used to defend those who are caught against charges that they feel are unfair or out of scale with the crime?[/citation]
So you got me thinking, and it shook lose some of the cobwebs in my brain. There is a group that already does this: The Electronic Frontier Foundation. In particular, this article on their site specifically details their legal involvement in at least one case.

They are not a "respect copyrights group" per se, however, it does look like they at least sometimes do get involved in media piracy cases.