Archive for April, 2006
Someone is always damaged
Apr 17th
This morning I read some reports on the reaction to Sun’s recent discussion
on open source DRM. The reaction from the Stallmanites was not
surprisingly negative. From what I gather, no DRM is the only solution
that would be acceptable however this has left me somewhat confused.
Perhaps someone could leave me a comment and help me understand how this is
supposed to work.
Here’s what I’ve got so far. Stallman cites four basic freedoms.
The freedoms to run the program you wish, to change said program, to distribute
said program, and to distribute said changes. These freedoms fit neatly
into a software world but are being applied to the digial media and DRM
argument.
Apparently, according to Stallman, I should have the right, as the consumer,
to share with all my friends the music and movies I am listening to or
watching. This sounds like a great deal. No more heading down to the
music store to pick up that latest cd and no more grumbling because the one song
you like is not released as a single so you are forced to buy the whole crappy
album. If I want a song in my collection, I simply fire up my BitTorrent
client and grab a copy.
Except what about the rights of the band or artist that produced the
music? Living in Nashville and being friends with people who have made it
big in music, I can tell you that they work hard to produce good albums.
What about their rights? What rights do they have? I suppose
Stallman would argue that they should give their music away and make money on
concerts. However, doesn’t that impose restrictions on their rights?
Isn’t that denying some of their freedoms for our sake? What if they don’t
want to spend months on the road away from their families? What if they
want to simply participate in the normal producer-consumer cycle and produce an
item that has a worth such that someone is willing to give them money for
it?
Do you see where this is going? With no way to protect the content,
music producers will simply stop producing professionally recorded discs of
their music and they will only perform live concerts. In this
scenario, we all lose.
Somebody has to look down the road
Apr 11th
I just read this
article on how Wal-Mart controls the content of video games with it’s
massive retailing power. They “force” game studios to create certain types
of games by refusing to carry what they perceive to be objectionable
content. Good for them.
I’m not for censorship and I firmly believe in a person’s right to enjoy
whatever type of entertainment they wish (currently legally allowed) however
those individuals that slam corporations like Wal-Mart for refusing to carry
certain items are just not seeing the big picture. They will cry that
rights are being violated, which is stupid. Wal-Mart certainly isn’t
obligated to carry every game made and it’s the game studios (wise) decision to
not develop a game that Wal-Mart will not carry. It’s simply
economics.
Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe it is better if Wal-Mart carried all the games
that are made. Perhaps society would be better off if we had more games
involving nudity, sex acts, cop killing, prostitution, and vulgar language and
behavior. You think I’m kidding? Look at the BMX XXX game, or the
Grant Theft Auto series. Game studios would make far worse if they could
get by with it. Maybe there is a place for X-rated and very violent games
in our society but the store shelf at Wal-Mart in front of every 8 year old on
the planet is not it.
I'm sorry
Apr 3rd
I deeply apologize for the objectionable material that
was recently placed on my site. It was not my doing but was my
fault. I failed to properly secure my ongoing test of DotNetNuke and some
idiot took advantage of that. I think I’ve removed all traces of this hack
and secured the enty points and I’ll keep a close watch on the site for further
shenanigans.
Again, I’m sorry.