5 ms·

> Somehow people are more okay with paying an ongoing fee for software or some perceived notion of services, but that same does't yet apply to content in a larg

> Somehow people are more okay with paying an ongoing fee for software or some perceived notion of services, but that same does't yet apply to content in a larger way. I think it's pretty simple to see why this is: Once created (digital) content is inert and doesn't really require any ongoing maintenance as such. Software always requires some sort of ongoing maintenance.

JoshTriplett 12y ago
Some of the most amazing digital content is transformative, and supported by an ongoing community of people producing and transforming it. Any one individual work is "inert", but the value is in the body of work as a whole. And none of that would be possible with DRM.
- marvy 12y ago
  example?
  - dublinben 12y ago
    See any of the works by the artist Pogo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAwR6w2TgxY&list=TLIfADM1J0RJOCLzaKkvK2tb17PWmD_4Fs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAwR6w2TgxY&list=TLIfADM1J0R...
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      And then notice what a tiny fraction of views his original content gets: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCn-K7GIs62ENvdQe6ZZk9-w https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCn-K7GIs62ENvdQe6ZZk9-w Conclusion: >90% of the value fot audiences lies in the original source material rather than his enjoyable remixes of same.
- lomnakkus 12y ago
  Oh, yes, remixing is a huge deal which DRM threatens to cripple. Still, given the analog hole and high-quality recording equipment I don't think that it'll necessarily die, it'll just be driven underground (even more than it already is).
bitJericho 12y ago
Digital software and content requires maintenance and upkeep or the copies and backups will be lost. Burned CDs are rated to last 10 years. Floppy disks less so. Pressed CDs and various backup mediums maybe 100 years. Hard drives have a finite life span too. Please help maintain historical data. http://archiveteam.org/index.php?title=Main_Page http://archiveteam.org/index.php?title=Main_Page
moskie 12y ago
The inert-ness you're referring doesn't really apply in a world where all this digital content is streamed from servers in the cloud. The infrastructure to provide that steaming content must be maintained.
- aninhumer 12y ago
  The distribution costs have nothing to do with maintaining the content itself, and given that pirates apparently manage to distribute content for free, the necessity of those costs becomes highly questionable. Indeed, these costs are artificially imposed by the streaming model which is used, despite its inefficiency, to control consumption.
  - moskie 12y ago
    > given that pirates apparently manage to distribute content for free Well, that's a strange statement. The computers and internet connections (and time) used for piracy are not free. And the costs of pirating/torrenting/peering this content are offset by the savings of the pirates/peers not paying for the content itself....
    - aninhumer 12y ago
      >The computers and internet connections (and time) used for piracy are not free. Yes, but you still have to pay for those if you stream the content. It seems rather dubious to suggest the streaming infrastructure is "necessary", when apparently pirates can distribute fine without it. Time used to be a factor, but with things like Popcorn Time starting to appear, piracy is approaching the usability of legal streaming services.

JoshTriplett 12y ago

Some of the most amazing digital content is transformative, and supported by an ongoing community of people producing and transforming it. Any one individual work is "inert", but the value is in the body of work as a whole. And none of that would be possible with DRM.

marvy 12y ago
example?
- dublinben 12y ago
  See any of the works by the artist Pogo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAwR6w2TgxY&list=TLIfADM1J0RJOCLzaKkvK2tb17PWmD_4Fs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAwR6w2TgxY&list=TLIfADM1J0R...
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    And then notice what a tiny fraction of views his original content gets: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCn-K7GIs62ENvdQe6ZZk9-w https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCn-K7GIs62ENvdQe6ZZk9-w Conclusion: >90% of the value fot audiences lies in the original source material rather than his enjoyable remixes of same.
lomnakkus 12y ago
Oh, yes, remixing is a huge deal which DRM threatens to cripple. Still, given the analog hole and high-quality recording equipment I don't think that it'll necessarily die, it'll just be driven underground (even more than it already is).

bitJericho 12y ago

Digital software and content requires maintenance and upkeep or the copies and backups will be lost. Burned CDs are rated to last 10 years. Floppy disks less so. Pressed CDs and various backup mediums maybe 100 years. Hard drives have a finite life span too. Please help maintain historical data. http://archiveteam.org/index.php?title=Main_Page http://archiveteam.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

moskie 12y ago

The inert-ness you're referring doesn't really apply in a world where all this digital content is streamed from servers in the cloud. The infrastructure to provide that steaming content must be maintained.

aninhumer 12y ago
The distribution costs have nothing to do with maintaining the content itself, and given that pirates apparently manage to distribute content for free, the necessity of those costs becomes highly questionable. Indeed, these costs are artificially imposed by the streaming model which is used, despite its inefficiency, to control consumption.
- moskie 12y ago
  > given that pirates apparently manage to distribute content for free Well, that's a strange statement. The computers and internet connections (and time) used for piracy are not free. And the costs of pirating/torrenting/peering this content are offset by the savings of the pirates/peers not paying for the content itself....
  - aninhumer 12y ago
    >The computers and internet connections (and time) used for piracy are not free. Yes, but you still have to pay for those if you stream the content. It seems rather dubious to suggest the streaming infrastructure is "necessary", when apparently pirates can distribute fine without it. Time used to be a factor, but with things like Popcorn Time starting to appear, piracy is approaching the usability of legal streaming services.