|
Sunday, July 3, 2005
Previous topic
|
Next topic
|
|
 Sunday, July 3, 2005
started 7/3/2005; 10:10:30 AM - last post 7/3/2005; 11:43:22 PM
|
|
Doc Searls - Sunday, July 3, 2005 
7/3/2005; 2:10:30 PM (reads: 5623, responses: 2)
|
|
Quote du jour 
| | in a world where commentators are constantly trying to determine the difference between a blogger and a journalist, may i suggest that a journalist is a professional willing to go to jail for their profession. |
What's not happening
| | The LA Beach Blog thing that Halley has been sending folks here to learn more about, isn't happening. |
| | The story begins here and involves this, plus the fact that it isn't quite organized, beyond a few blog posts. |
| | Soooo.... Enjoy the weekend amongst yourselves. |
Why DRM is EBWU, part N
| | Dave Winer's post and podcast on DRM are required reading and listening for everybody in entertainment and publishing with even a micron of openness to the possibility that locking "content" behind DRM schemes and paywalls just might be a bad idea. |
| | In fact, it's worse than bad. It's what Craig Burton calls EBWU, for evil, wrong, bad and ugly. |
| | In his podcast, Dave explains what the software industry learned about DRM (which we called "copy protection") way back in the 80s: it distrusts and screws the honest and good-willed customers on which the industry depends; and it ends up costing more money and opportunity than it makes. It's a huge step backwards. |
| | This is important, because right now the publishing and entertainment industries are becoming enamored of DRM and paywalls. They think it's the future. But if they listen to software developers with long experience, they'll find out it's already in the past. Been there, done that, burned the t-shirt. |
discuss
|
|
flynn - Re: Saturday, July 2, 2005
7/3/2005; 3:26:22 PM (reads: 1227, responses: 1)
|
|
|
I'm a software devoloper myself, and I went the other road: At first licensing was very liberal. Let me tell you something: Nobody, but a very view people cared to pay anything. After introducing a more strict licensing model, sales skyrocketed. I'm talking about a figure of 10000% here. It seems you have to treat customers badly if you want to survive, at least in certain customer demographics. It's very sad and I really like to get back to liberal licensing, but that does not seem to work. Dave might be an exception, but the majority (the people Dave calls "dumb customers") don't want to pay for software or content and won't if you don't force them.
discuss
|
|
Doc Searls - Re: Saturday, July 2, 2005
7/4/2005; 3:43:22 AM (reads: 822, responses: 0)
|
|
|
It would be interesting to see the figures, but I suspect that your case is the exception rather than Dave's. In the 80s software makers large and small tried copy proteciton, with "key disks" and other schemes, like the one Dave described in his podcast. And they dropped them. There are lessons there that need to be remembered.
That doesn't mean that DRM is gone completely, by the way. In some cases it's scaled back. For example, if you open a Microsoft office application on a network (or a subnet, or a network context where other apps are in view), and the app detects another copy with the same serial number running on that network, it shuts itself down. Or so I've seen, anyway.
discuss
|
|
|
Copyright 2009 The Doc Searls Weblog
|
