5 comments

• 

  Shelley

  3 years ago

  Well, we're seeing what Google is releasing, and I think we should consider having input into DRMs rather than ignoring them until they 'go away'.
  
  BTW, did you mean Doc Searls instead of Dave Winer?
  reply
• 

  Mathew

  3 years ago

  I totally agree, Shelley. And yes, I did mean Doc instead of Dave --
  a slip of the typewriter, I'm afraid. I'm not sure who would be more offended by the comparison :-)
  reply
• 

  Stuart MacDonald

  3 years ago

  Good piece on globe.com, Mathew, and I like the "column in progress" thing. Neat idea. Do you do that all the time?
  
  I've said my piece on DRM -- I don't know enough about copyright to have an informed position other than a broad belief that intellectual property should be protected, and that from a consumer perspective it's all about choice, easy, value and legal.
  
  On Apple repeating their own history: really interesting. Again, I think that they are doing choice, easy, value and legal so well (though not perfectly, I know) that at this point that it really doesn't matter. But isn't it so that, eventually, all the players here will just have to stop with the "mine's bigger than yours" fun and play nice in the standards sandbox? It sure looks that way to me...
  
  - Stuart
  reply
• 

  David Smith

  3 years ago

  Mathew, I'm not saying that we should restrict the debate to whether or not we should have DRM. I am saying that what is happening - the rolling out of (incompatible) DRM mechanisms -- is happening without appropriate public engagement. Given the importance of DRM and its potential side-effects (in her post, Shelley touches on a number of areas of possible concern), the debate must happen -- and must include thoughtful, open discussion as to whether DRM is a good thing at all. Talking with, or listening to, business leaders and entrepreneurs who are building their companies on the net, I am struck by how many are questioning traditional business models and, in doing so, are also questioning the role and place of DRM. Such questioning needs to be communicated more widely within our societies.
  
  I note that Lloyd Shepherd updated his original post and has concluded that, thus far, no-one has come forward to answer his original questions: 'what are the best implementations of DRM out there, which balance the needs of the provider and the consumer without getting in the way of either? Does such a thing exist?'. Lloyd has concluded: 'It would appear that the answer to my original question is a resounding “no� from this little survey'.
  
  I liked Tom Loosemore's comment (number 16) on Lloyd's posting, and I think Lee Bryant made two valuable comments there, too.
  reply
• 

  Mathew

  3 years ago

  I apologize if I mis-characterized your argument, David. For what
  it's worth, I just want to say that I agree we need a frank and open
  discussion about different kinds of DRM, or how to strike a balance
  between the need for some kind of copyright protection and the need
  for an open Internet, and fair use. And I think it's obvious that
  Lloyd wants that too. I'm not sure there's much point in "retiring to
  the sidelines to wave a "DRM is evil" sign" as one person commented on
  Lloyd's post. That's all I was trying to say.
  reply