Hi Tom! On 31/10/2007, Tom Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > FWIW I think it's a more powerful argument to state that the value of > > > a recording per-se is now tending towards zero, digital tech having > > > removed scarcity from much of the value chain. > > > > > > The business models which recognise this will thrive in the long term. > > > > Redressing things in the discourse of corporate businesses, like this, > > is okay, but can lead to nasty outcomes like thinking that DRM is > > legitimate. > > since when has a value chain been the discourse of corporate business?
Corporate businesses don't tend to think in terms of social fabric; Friends don't tend to think in terms of value chains. What I'm saying here is kind of subtle, so I'll try and explain in detail. Corporate businesses have unexamined values like "the amount of production matters, while freedom and way of life do not," and they make assumptions like "copyrights on music support musicians" and "patents on drugs support life-saving research." When I examine these values and assumptions, I find them disagreeable. The problem with redressing issues in the language of corporate business is that you take on such assumptions and unexamined values. For example, the terms "intellectual property" and "digital rights management" are designed to frame debates with corporate values. So I'll say "digital restrictions management" and avoid the use of the confusing term "intellectual property" altogether, to frame the debate with my values. If I speak with a "dialect" too different to the one used by corporate business, there is a breakdown in communication - while if I speak in the dialect of corporates, then I may well make a "more powerful argument." But it is risky, because it can carry underlying assumptions that undo the overt argument. > the BBC operates within a value chain, as does anyone else making > doing stuff what is valued by others - be they acting as citizens or > as consumers Sure > I think you're just incapable of addressing my substantive point AIUI, your point is that the newly hewn social fabric formed by friends sharing _actual_ copies can be replaced by friends sharing _links to_ copies. I disagree. Those copies were initially streamed, then DRM encumbered, and soon both. Eg 1, youtube embedding URLs (streamed, no DRM) Eg 2, a joost account can send a Joost show uid to another joost account. (Downloaded and DRM (?)) Eg 3, the iPlayer facebook application, that allows people to use a popular social network to share links to iPlayer shows. (Downloaded and DRM) Eg 4, the announced iPlayer based on Adobe software (streamed and DRM) Supposing we decide DRM is illegitimate, we are left with streaming, youtube style. As you say, broadband is becoming more ubiquitous, but there are long term problems - what happens when the streams go off line? Or you don't have fast enough broadband around? So even though Gnash can play YouTube in my browser, I still use http://www.arrakis.es/~rggi3/youtube-dl/ to watch youtube. > It's > *dead* easy to make anti-DRM arguments using whatever 'discourse' you > choose - the fact you choose to come at it from an angle which is > outside the rule of law is why there are people on this list who now > think you're a pro-DRM advocate in disguise. There are two debates here, one about file sharing's merits, and one about anti-DRM - which is broader. Richard Lockwood and I can and do agree that DRM is not legitimate because it restricts use unfairly. This means people are less likely to desire DRM data, and this is why many recently pro-DRM companies are dropping their DRM. I think by October 2007 this is clear to a lot more people than even 12 months ago. DRM is evil because it is coupled to anti-circumvention law, which means writing alternative software to do the same job is illegal - ie, play a iPlayer show with a filter to protect me from epileptic seizure. Without that law, DRM is just like the copy protection in use since the 1970s - its merely annoying, and doesn't matter very much. I am making an additional claim, that DRM is not legitimate because it restricts redistribution. This is a separate but associated debate. I _could_ ignore restrictions on redistribution imposed on DRM, and just talk about the restrictions on use. Perhaps that would be wise if I was talking to rights holders in a strategic meeting. But I'm on a public mailing list, chatting away about something on-topic. I don't see -- Regards, Dave - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
