It’s been a while.

I’m writing because I’d like to be able to watch Pixar’s “Wall-e”.

Funny thing to want, but there you are.

Now, to stop speculation before it starts, I’ve actually hired the movie, and bought an (ex-rental) copy.

So, you might say, why don’t you stick it in your DVD player, sit back and enjoy?

Well, my DVD player is a Mac Mini, that’s why. It’s a really nice centralised system — with a 20 inch Apple screen — which has hitherto been able to play everything I wanted it to. Except a Goldfrapp CD (“Black Cherry” from memory. That got sold at a garage sale a year ago and I bought the album on iTunes instead. I think that experience resulted in a rant discussion about the merits of Digital Rights Management, Copy Protection and which particular orifice these should be stuffed into.)

What I object to the most is being treated like a thief.

I’ve paid my money for a copy of this movie, completely legitimately. I’ve even hired the movie from a DVD rental place. Legitimate use I’d call that.

Yet, my system, purchased at great expense, is unable to play the disc. The disc has been set-up NOT to conform to the DVD standard, and has effectively broken the DVD for use on this kind of system.

What the funniest thing about all of this is that it’s legitimate users that are targeted by copy protection. No, that’s actually ironic – the fact that the people who are happy to do the right thing and hand their hard-earned money over for a real-live copy of a movie that’s been produced by a movie studio (and in the aforementioned CD example, by a music studio — in that case I think it was Sony, whose stock in the music-listening-community must surely have reached rock-bottom by now) get penalised for having a particular style of system.

In fact, this attitude plays right into the hands of the pirates, for what’s a person to do – they want to purchase the movie and it’s broken. They’re prepared to hire the movie and it won’t play. What other alternative is there if the demand exists?

That’s why DRM is doomed to failure – because of the very supply versus demand principles that the western economy is based upon: The supply in this case is useless, but the demand is still there – so people (not me in this case, for I’m not at all like that) will try alternative means to obtain what they’re after.

It’s the same principle that whole countries are applying to AIDS vaccines and anti-retroviral drugs. The pharma companies won’t supply these life-saving drugs to countries that “can’t pay for them” and so the countries themselves say “screw that” and make their own.

In short, all that DRM says to me is that the companies producing the products that use them are  one thing over all else: Greedy.

Back in the days of yore, everyone and their dog was copying records onto tape and playing them. Did that send the music industry into a tailspin?

People were copying movies back in the 80s… did that send the movie companies to the wall?

Here’s a thing: I don’t think copying movies or CDs is a bad thing – I think it’s great for the artists involved because — like social networking — it has the potential to get even more people to view or listen to a piece of work.

But DRM and “Copy Protection” is all about the production company dinosaurs hanging onto outdated marketing and supply strategies. The world has moved into a new place, where information is open to all. When the companies finally do wise-up, they’ll jump on this bandwagon and will make a mint doing it.

But while they hang onto this idiotic selling model, based on a shortage principle (rather than the open “abundance” principle mentioned above) then yes, they will continue a slow downward spiral until hopefully someone in government will stand up to these idiots and say “no more” – you are not allowed to penalise customers for doing the right thing. You are not allowed to sue mums and dads for having a couple of copies of a movie on their computer – we shall call that henceforth “fair use”.

I hope it happens soon.

What goes around, comes around.

Proposed intellectual property agreement

It occurs to me that this is the modern equivalent of the restriction of information and free-thought that existed during the Dark Ages.

Remember that fun time, where the church was all powerful, they could do what they liked and anyone they didn’t like was harassed and if you spoke up, you were tied to a tree and burned to death.

Perhaps they won’t do the burning this time around. But they can — if this monstrosity gets up — do these:

- ex-officio authority to take action against infringers  (i.e. authority to act without complaint by right holders)(my note: anywhere, any time, they can grab you and start searching. Nice one)

- authority to order ex parte searches and other preliminary measures (my note: right to be notified of a search, presumption of innocence, etc, etc?)

- remedies against circumvention of technological protection measures used by copyright owners and the trafficing of circumvention devices (my note: well, there goes the ENTIRE computer industry, and the Medical industries in one fell swoop)

And perhaps the scariest of all:

- Special measures for developing countries in the initial stages (my note: what exactly does this mean? Whitey cracks the whip and says you can’t do this anymore?)

What’s scary about all this? Well, suspension of the presumption of innocence for starters. And, of course, the ultimate issue that if a whole country — say an african country which is breaking copyright by producing its own anti-retroviral drugs in an attempt to stem the spread of AIDS — is breaking this “law”, then what happens then? Do the armed forces of another country fly in and bomb them all to smithereens because they’re breaking copyright.

And how exactly are they going to stop China?

In my opinion, and this is my blog, so I can say stuff like this, the proposal is a massive can of worms which could be used to justify anything from the suspension of the presumption of innocence to all out war.

And again, it’s another attempt to stifle the creativity and information exchange afforded by the net and other technological advances.

Long live freedom of thought.

Just read an interesting article emailed by a friend; it’s in the latest issue of Vanity Fair. Copyright and inclination prevent me from posting the PDF here, however.

The article was by a gent called “Michael Wolff” and the article: Generals Gadgets and Guerrillas. Not sure why they spelled it with two “r”s, I’ve always thought it was one.

Anyway…

It was a standard “People with gadgets are thieves” article, with some interesting sidelines into Google Phone territory.

I think in some ways he missed that gadgets have been around a long time, and the content companies screamed just as loudly when — for example — the VHS video machine was sold to the public, and tape-decks were out there.

Ultimately he gets the point in the end, which is that the content companies have a totally unsustainable business model and rather than fighting the gadgets, they need to embrace them as another way of getting their content out to the consumer.

The other point is that it’s mostly people who don’t have the funds to buy something that steal. 11 year olds breaking copy protection is really nothing new; I was breaking copy protection (albeit in the form of a 12 inch LP onto a tape) at that age, so was most of the western world. Course, once we had the money, we started buying our music and videos and all the rest of it, because it’s nice to have the box, the sleeve, the cover and all the extra bits that come with something bought. It’s also such a pain in the arse to hunt around for something to pinch. That’s what disposable income is for, after all!

The only issue here is that it would have been nigh impossible to measure this “illegal” activity back in the 60s, 70’s and 80’s. Now the companies can, they’re screaming like cut pigs.

I really welcome the day these monstrous organisations finally stop fighting the tar-pits they’re caught in and finally sink beneath the surface and die. It’s about time the creators of the content had some control. And that’s already begun, with some of the writers involved in the writers strike in the US going independent on Youtube and other mediums, and shows like Bablyon 5 selling straight-to-DVD shows, completely subverting the whole studio structures.

In the end, all the studios really do is transmit. Money to produce something can come from any number of avenues.

DRM is dead. Long may it remain that way…

However, not to be outdone, Sony music (among others) are now resurrecting the long-thought-dead concept of watermarking.

And MS, that champion of the rights of the consumer at its own cost*, has patented El Dorado, which will supposedly remain with music for the length of its lifespan (in the case of most pop music, about thirty seconds after it hits music shops; what’s the point?!)

The death of the music and TV industries can’t come fast enough IMO. Even the movie makers are jumping on the internet bandwagon. 

As a good friend has put it: the patriarchy is dying, best get out of the way.

—————-

* Joke, Joyce.