4 ms·

Until he admits that opting for DRM in html, in an open standard (!), was a historically bad idea, that guy has no credibility and nobody should need to bother

Until he admits that opting for DRM in html, in an open standard (!), was a historically bad idea, that guy has no credibility and nobody should need to bother about what he thinks.

bananas 13y ago
Glad someone mentioned this. You cant call for open standards and an international bill of rights whilst bending over for corporate content control.
Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
Seriously, the guy who invented the web (and let's stop for one second to think about what that has given us) makes one bad call and you say as a result he has no credibility? I sure as hell hope you hold yourself to the same standard in your own life.
- nfoz 13y ago
  > (and let's stop for one second to think about what that has given us) It's entirely unclear to me that Tim's web is better than whatever similar system(s) would have gained popularity in its place.
hopeless 13y ago
DRM is not my preferred solution but it's really the only solution that our profession has offered the content creators^ as a means of protecting their property. Perhaps it's time for us to invent a solution that satisfies the principles of openness and the ability for creators to get paid (and this was always what I took from TBL's comments) ^ and I don't just mean the Disneys of the world. Independent photographers in particular are royally screwed by the web - though even DRM won't fix that.
- chimeracoder 13y ago
  > Independent photographers in particular are royally screwed by the web - though even DRM won't fix that. DRM is a haphazard attempt to violate fundamental laws of economics - if a good can be copied and distributed at zero marginal cost[0], it's futile trying to prevent that by fiat. Independent artists and musicians have always been "screwed" if they want to make a living selling their art itself, as opposed to performances of it (for musicians) or the service of creating it (ie, photoshoots, wedding photographs). We can look at the business models that Shakespeare and Marlowe operated under, or even Bach and Beethoven - by and large, artists in this era were paid by patrons who essentially commissioned works. And this was still in an era in which copying the plays or sheet music still came at a significant marginal cost (whereas copying digital works has no cost). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics)
  - Loughla 13y ago
    So, um, you're suggesting a business model for art and creativity that relies on the largesse of wealthy patrons? I really, really hope you like love songs and terrible portraits.
    - logfromblammo 13y ago
      Back when patronage was the dominant business model for art creation, "wealthy" was pretty much anyone that had space in their budget for discretionary expenses. These days, you don't need one person to pay your living expenses while you create. You can get 50000 fans to pay you $1 a year to make the stuff that they think is cool. With cryptocurrency, you can even get fans from other countries to pay patronage. Sure, rich people will always be able to commission the crap that no one likes but them, but that's no longer the only way to go.
    - polymatter 13y ago
      Kickstarter-like funding? Public money? Donations? Grants? I don't believe that the law should be trying to protect the current business model of horse breeders/candlestick makers/cinema complexes simply because technology has made possible a cheaper and better equivalent.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - bovermyer 13y ago
      Besides Kickstarter, there is a company that is very successfully doing this in the tabletop role-playing game industry. The patron model is viable, as long as you diversify your patrons. It's not really all that different from the freelance coder lifestyle.

Until he admits that opting for DRM in html, in an open standard (!), was a historically bad idea, that guy has no credibility and nobody should need to bother about what he thinks.

bananas 13y ago

Glad someone mentioned this. You cant call for open standards and an international bill of rights whilst bending over for corporate content control.

Tyrannosaurs 13y ago

Seriously, the guy who invented the web (and let's stop for one second to think about what that has given us) makes one bad call and you say as a result he has no credibility? I sure as hell hope you hold yourself to the same standard in your own life.

nfoz 13y ago
> (and let's stop for one second to think about what that has given us) It's entirely unclear to me that Tim's web is better than whatever similar system(s) would have gained popularity in its place.

hopeless 13y ago

DRM is not my preferred solution but it's really the only solution that our profession has offered the content creators^ as a means of protecting their property. Perhaps it's time for us to invent a solution that satisfies the principles of openness and the ability for creators to get paid (and this was always what I took from TBL's comments) ^ and I don't just mean the Disneys of the world. Independent photographers in particular are royally screwed by the web - though even DRM won't fix that.

chimeracoder 13y ago
> Independent photographers in particular are royally screwed by the web - though even DRM won't fix that. DRM is a haphazard attempt to violate fundamental laws of economics - if a good can be copied and distributed at zero marginal cost[0], it's futile trying to prevent that by fiat. Independent artists and musicians have always been "screwed" if they want to make a living selling their art itself, as opposed to performances of it (for musicians) or the service of creating it (ie, photoshoots, wedding photographs). We can look at the business models that Shakespeare and Marlowe operated under, or even Bach and Beethoven - by and large, artists in this era were paid by patrons who essentially commissioned works. And this was still in an era in which copying the plays or sheet music still came at a significant marginal cost (whereas copying digital works has no cost). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics)
- Loughla 13y ago
  So, um, you're suggesting a business model for art and creativity that relies on the largesse of wealthy patrons? I really, really hope you like love songs and terrible portraits.
  - logfromblammo 13y ago
    Back when patronage was the dominant business model for art creation, "wealthy" was pretty much anyone that had space in their budget for discretionary expenses. These days, you don't need one person to pay your living expenses while you create. You can get 50000 fans to pay you $1 a year to make the stuff that they think is cool. With cryptocurrency, you can even get fans from other countries to pay patronage. Sure, rich people will always be able to commission the crap that no one likes but them, but that's no longer the only way to go.
  - polymatter 13y ago
    Kickstarter-like funding? Public money? Donations? Grants? I don't believe that the law should be trying to protect the current business model of horse breeders/candlestick makers/cinema complexes simply because technology has made possible a cheaper and better equivalent.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - bovermyer 13y ago
    Besides Kickstarter, there is a company that is very successfully doing this in the tabletop role-playing game industry. The patron model is viable, as long as you diversify your patrons. It's not really all that different from the freelance coder lifestyle.