Would 09 f9 11 02, etc. ever have become an issue if they didn't try to shut it down?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Zadi on May 9, 2007 at 4:43pm

You already know how I feel about this. It's ridiculous. But a natural step in the evolution of how we think about our media. How we "own" our media.

The flip side is - well, how do producers and studios make money if people can just "take" it without paying.

The studios need to find a better way to distribute content. One that doesn't lock out consumers. I always thought this would happen with the holistic integration of relevant advertising/sponsors...

The question is not how do we lock out buyers, but what can we do so that free distribution makes sense and is actually beneficial to the property.

I feel like what we're doing on a small scale with podcasting is a precursor of how all media will eventually be distributed.

This is obviously a conversation that needs to happen. I think its a pivotal moment and I'm curious to see how it plays out.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kyle H on May 17, 2007 at 10:30pm

Why not do something simple -- like put a link in the media file that says "if you want to see more stuff like this, click here to help fund it" or something? We've never really had any media player that would present such a link usefully (and unobtrusively), and we've never really had anyone try to create such.

I personally think that people should be allowed to have Fair Use rights on media. I believe that people should be able to use the media that they've purchased licenses for on whatever platform they find convenient at the time they wish to use it.

You know, book publishers had a relatively similar argument when it came to libraries: "How do authors and publishers make money if many people can go out and read a single copy for free?" And, as well, there are several authors and musicians who recognize the need for lack-of-DRM.

(I'd point you to http://www.baen.com/library/ and the "Prime Palaver" link on the left for a series of essays and articles about it. That's Eric Flint, a speculative fiction author -- but he talks about other authors' experiences as well. Essay #12 is by Janis Ian from http://www.janisian.com/ -- if you want to read the original, go to the Prose menu, then "Performing Songwriter Articles", and then select "The Internet Debacle" and "Fallout-Response to The Internet Debacle".)

I think that there's a lot of possibility here, if we look at an assumption that Jim Baen (may he rest in peace) made: 99% of people want to be honest. The other 1% you can't do anything about anyway. Considering that he created the only profitable fiction e-book business based around "you can get it as a text file or RTF, just please don't use it improperly", I'd suggest that treating all customers as potential criminals (and thus, restricting them from doing what they should be allowed to do because of the fewer than 1 in 100 who will do what you're afraid of) is ludicrous, laughable, and economic suicide.

And remember, it's the RIAA, MPAA and Viacom who are pushing for these restrictions. These restrictions can only benefit them, not the little guy.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Zadi on May 18, 2007 at 3:09am

Note** when I said "on the flip side" I meant that this is what we constantly hear from studios.. not what I think. flip side=studios and studio producers.

This is what happens when you get little sleep. You become less articulate. :)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Flamekebab on May 18, 2007 at 3:15am

By that token..
*grunt*
*grunt grunt*
Urrghhh..
*snuffle*
I slept about an hour last night..

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kyle H on May 18, 2007 at 2:52pm

This is true. :) But still, you brought it up as a concept into the discussion, so I gave you credit for it. Where you got it from... well, people can track it back if they want to know. :)

(or can they? what's the appropriate way to handle attribution of that sort?)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Flamekebab on May 9, 2007 at 7:07pm

I do feel like media I buy is locked down to such an extent that it's MORE CONVENIENT to pirate it.

For example, if I wanted to watch a season of Family Guy episodes, do I buy it, rip it/transcode it (using deCSS to remove the encryption, of course)?
Or do I just download it so it's already in a convenient format, sitting on my hard disk, rather than having to hunt for a disc every time I feel like watching?

I'm finally buying DVDs now, because they're finally at a price I consider reasonable - £6 or so, sometimes less. That's probably not such a good price if you trade in US dollars, but it's fairly reasonable over here.

However, I do go to the cinema fairly often (there's actually two cinemas within two minutes walk of my current flat and another about ten minutes down the road).

Just as I feel that it's fairly reasonable to expect musicians to make their main revenue from performance, I am willing to pay to see a film in the cinema, because it's a lot more fun.

If I buy a disc with the film, I'll watch it once. Maybe twice. With the exception of my three "all time favourite films ever".

So to pay a high price to own something I'll rarely watch, if ever, seems ridiculous, especially due to the cost of the media.

Baaack on topic, apologies for the tangent, why does it matter if the encryption is known? DVD's copy protection was cracked years ago and I can't say DVD sales slumped.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Rick Rey on May 9, 2007 at 7:26pm

I'm sorry Steve but I just reported you to the DMCA. Please use better judgment next time.

PWN'd!1!!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Robert Brown on May 9, 2007 at 7:58pm

if anyones into ytmnd.com....

http://hddvd.ytmnd.com/

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by lgbsneak on May 9, 2007 at 8:20pm

I wonder how much the guys who created the encryption got paid, and how much trouble they're in now.
They based it off one hex string!!!!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by michael lambie on May 9, 2007 at 10:25pm

did you happen to catch the galacticast ep of this one? man it was great. yes, digg was in a tizzy. it went a little overboard. well, hd-dvd is a sponsor of the show, but i mean, how long do they expect that to be a secret. it's press for them. have you ever noticed how current.tv does their user generated ads? they're kinda cool. anyway, it's a cool way to go. i guess that has nothing to do w/ encryption codes, mainly good times.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Liza on May 10, 2007 at 3:46am

Without incriminating myself (oh damn... I think I just did) the fact of the matter is there will be people out there who will ALWAYS get around encryption. As you said, there were people who knew about this months ago - and the only reason it became a big public hubabaloo was because Digg made a big deal over it, made it "public". So now it's out there... yeah, people are stealing music/movies/television. Always have, always will.
I agree with Zadi that it's something that needs to be talked about... although I'm not sure there will ever be a satisfactory resolution.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by TheFemGeek on May 10, 2007 at 4:07am

I personally do not think it would have became a big issue. But I also think that the number wasn't so much the issue as to what happened to digg as much as it was that the persons who were posting it were prohibited from posting. I believe some rebels, who were looking for a cause or probably looking to get recognition, stumbled on a topic where people who were aware of the implications of this number or the violation of censorship were able to take this discussion further when it came to the practices of the RIAA, MPAA, etc. It was a childish rant reaction that snowballed into an intellegent conversation on what is considered copywritten, patented, or any other form of protection. But I do think that the digg userd did need to understand that Jay and Kevin had to respond to whatever warning they got. Now Chris Pirillo made a good point in mentioning that digg has created this community that takes pride on rebelling against the so called "establishment" and I believe being a paying contributor to digg that most understood that digg had to respond. So for me I understood both sides and maybe something like this had to take fruition (though I don't think it was as widespread to the rest of the world as it was to the tech world) to show these groups that there is a community out there willing to stand together and at the same time, as we see the outcome to diggs action, we can ask the users are they willing to let digg.com possibly financially fall fighting against those who promise to take action because of giving this number out. I personally think digg covered their a@@es and this will soon pass.

▶ Reply to This

• 1
• 2