Log in

No account? Create an account
The Boston Community [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
The Boston Community

[ website | b0st0n memories ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Event on Saturday to get DRM out of the Boston Public Library [Feb. 7th, 2008|11:04 am]
The Boston Community



DefectiveByDesign.org has announced an action against libraries that support DRM on their collections. Boston locals can join them this Saturday from 1pm to 3pm at the Boston Public Library's main branch, and non-locals are encouraged to stage an action against their own library if it's using DRM.

Read story at Digg

(I'll be there.)


[User Picture]From: thetathx1138
2008-02-07 06:06 pm (UTC)
The Creative Commons is a good idea, but it's seriously flawed, not least because it assumes people will abide by its terms; I've seen even something as flexible as that be gleefully violated. It's useful for people who want to give things away for free and be supported by the fan base that builds (i.e. Jonathan Coulton), but not everybody can rely on that and frankly, for some art forms it's really not an effective model.

I'm an artist, maybe not a very good one, but I know that I learned my art based on the work of others. DRM prevents me from doing that effectively.

I'd like you to support this statement with some elaboration. You have no other way of experiencing art other than in digital form? Why?

As for the Alice DRM, just because the content itself is public domain doesn't mean THAT RECORDING of it is. You're not alone in making this mistake, but it IS a little annoying that our valiant defenders of copyright don't know the goddamn difference.

As of right now, DRM, as awkward and unpleasant as it is, is the only way to guarantee the artist gets paid for their work. When a better solution comes along, one that accomodates consumer, artist, AND middleman, that'll be great. Until then, if you don't like it...don't buy digital media.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: johnsu01
2008-02-07 06:17 pm (UTC)
Read up on the copyright status of audio book recordings -- it's not at all clear, and given that public performance rights belong to the original copyright holder and there no longer is an original copyright holder the case seems pretty clear to me that audio recordings of public domain books should not (and often are determined not to be) copyrightable.

Much art is moving toward digital from -- it's happening with books, music, visual media. Do you not agree with that?

What artists make money from DRM? Why are there artists like Radiohead and Trent Reznor speaking out against DRM? Why is the #2 player in the digital music market (emusic.com) completely free of DRM?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: thetathx1138
2008-02-07 06:44 pm (UTC)
Much art is moving toward digital from -- it's happening with books, music, visual media. Do you not agree with that?

I don't, actually. I do think digital distribution will be popular in some areas (television and music especially, possibly film rentals, although I'm skeptical), but not in others, and I don't think physical media will fade entirely in ANY area.

What artists make money from DRM?

If a distribution is paid for in some form (bought from a store, watched off of Netflix, etc.), then the artist, at least in theory, receives some form of royalty for their work. If it's downloaded illegally, they don't. It's really that simple. If it prevents illegal downloads, it helps artists get paid.

This is not to say I have any pity for the music industry who, realistically speaking, are the ones really taking it on the chin in terms of piracy. Most major-label musicians don't care about illegal downloads because, honestly, they're unlikely to see any money from any sort of legitimate sale (small label and self-distributed musicians are, of course, another matter).

We're talking about an industry SO corrupt that a platinum-selling band can actually wind up owing their label money, and have absolutely no control over how the songs on that album are used (ringtones, advertisements, etc.)! So, honestly, what do they care? Somebody's downloading an MP3? Great! That's more promotion for the tour, the merchandise, the fan club, the stuff that might actually make them money and keep them playing music.

Reznor is a great example of this: he will never see another penny from several of his albums due to the label that owned them collapsing and the rights being sold off. Royalty arrangements are separate from rights, so he's shafted. This is why I'm not going to buy a new copy of those albums; at least if I buy a used copy there's a possibility he might have seen a nickel out of that sale.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)