any time, effort, or money spent trying to stop file sharing is time, effort and money that is not just wasted, but actually invested in ill will against you and your product.
It costs as much to access information as it does to make it.
Same with the rest of culture. I am continually baffled that people fail to acknowledge the work that goes into "consuming" art. In fact it's not "consuming," it's attending.
Attention is scarce. Information is not. Do the math.
Er...Cory Doctorow does favor some copyright, and releases his books under -NC ("non-commercial") CC licenses, aka commercial monopolies. The whole point of -NC restrictions is to prevent commercial competition; the justification is that these monopolies provides incentives for works to be created that wouldn't be created otherwise.
I strongly disagree with -NC licenses and commercial monopolies, which happen to be incompatible with a functional market. Others believe they are worth the social cost.
So I am probably one of those "radical extremists," but Cory is not.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm starting to see the side of the copyright abologists
I need to send a stronger signal that my work is Free. Viewers need to know they can legally copy and share the work, which is vital to the film's distribution. Other artists and innovators need to know they won't be sued for building on the work. Otherwise it will be assumed "owned" by default - and the law backs that up. Free licenses aren't a perfect solution, but they're the best solution we've got in this everything-copyrighted-by-default regime.
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm starting to see the side of the copyright abologists
Creative Commons is worse than copyright as it promotes the same kind of dangerous "permission culture" it purports to eliminate. It creates an entirely new thicket around terms like "attribution" and "noncommercial use" that are entirely unnecessary.
Not worse than copyright, but I agree with the rest, and I hate that CC's genuinely Free licenses (Share-Alike (copyleft), CC-0, and Attribution only) are lumped in with their restrictive -NC and -ND licenses, so all are called just "Creative Commons licenses." CC-NC and CC-ND are CC-BS.
I don't want license proliferation, which is why I use CC's BY-SA, but I wish there were a viable competing organization that offered only Free licenses. I don't support over half of CC's licenses, and hate the implication that my use of their Free license means I support all their unfree crap.
Hollywood has been the gatekeeper for entertainment content for ages. It doesn't like the fact that it's losing that role. This fight isn't so much about copyright as it is about Hollywood's continued need to block out alternative routes for distribution that it cannot control.
Yes. But it is about copyright, because that's what copyright is for: eliminating competition.
Interestingly, Netflix competitor IndiePix picked up this story, to point out their video-on-demand (VOD) service is unencumbered with DRM.
I hope other competitors to Netflix, iTunes, etc. come forward to stress the value of their DRM-free services. This is how competition is supposed to work. If it's clear there is demand for DRM-free VOD, ultimately even the "big guys" will see it's in their interest to offer it too. But first audiences need to know what DRM is, and that DRM-free alternatives exist.
I personally would be more likely to end up watching it if it were available via the methods I've chosen to consume media [Netflix streaming in this case]. As it is, even though I want to watch your film, and even though I've known for a long time that it is available for free, I have not yet seen it. It is simply not convenient for me to track down the site you have it available, download it, and convert it to a DVD, or transfer it to my media sharing in order to watch it as I typically watch movies. If I had to individually track down each movie I want to watch, and deal with whatever codec each movie was distributed in, I'd watch a lot fewer films.
If it were available via Netflix streaming, it would fall within my daily routine of adding movies to my queue to watch. As a bonus, you'd actually get paid for it. I know I can add it to my physical DVD queue [and probably will eventually], but I'm an 'instant gratification' kind of guy. :) At this point probably 95% of my Netflix viewing is of streamed movies. In the last year I've only gone through about 4 physical DVDs from Netflix.
Doubletwist, your paragraph above sums up why this decision was so difficult for me. I wouldn't fault anyone for deciding the other way, including myself. This was one of the least clear dilemmas I've faced around "Sita." I desperately want "Sita" to be as conveniently accessible as possible. Netflix's VOD would have been so good, if not for the DRM.
I should add that I wasn't really tempted by the money. The $4,620 was offered to the distributor, FilmKaravan; I would have only received half of that, $2310. That's nice, but what I really wanted was the eyeballs Netflix would have offered.
On the post: Teenager And Composer Argue Over File Sharing
Re: Re: Re: Illegal is Illegal
Investing in ill will. Well said.
On the post: The Myth That Without Gov't Monopolies Or Subsidies, Discoveries Will Be Hidden By Secrets
True of other culture, too
Same with the rest of culture. I am continually baffled that people fail to acknowledge the work that goes into "consuming" art. In fact it's not "consuming," it's attending.
Attention is scarce. Information is not. Do the math.
On the post: Pushing For More Stringent Copyright Laws Is The Opposite Of Allowing 'Market Forces' To Act
Re: Re: Re: timely
I strongly disagree with -NC licenses and commercial monopolies, which happen to be incompatible with a functional market. Others believe they are worth the social cost.
So I am probably one of those "radical extremists," but Cory is not.
On the post: Pushing For More Stringent Copyright Laws Is The Opposite Of Allowing 'Market Forces' To Act
timely
On the post: As Google Voice Opens For All... It's Hit With Patent Infringement Claims
Re: ...Ok, that's it, I'm convinced now...
On the post: Terrible News: Court Says It's Okay To Remove Content From The Public Domain And Put It Back Under Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm starting to see the side of the copyright abologists
On the post: Terrible News: Court Says It's Okay To Remove Content From The Public Domain And Put It Back Under Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm starting to see the side of the copyright abologists
Not worse than copyright, but I agree with the rest, and I hate that CC's genuinely Free licenses (Share-Alike (copyleft), CC-0, and Attribution only) are lumped in with their restrictive -NC and -ND licenses, so all are called just "Creative Commons licenses." CC-NC and CC-ND are CC-BS.
I don't want license proliferation, which is why I use CC's BY-SA, but I wish there were a viable competing organization that offered only Free licenses. I don't support over half of CC's licenses, and hate the implication that my use of their Free license means I support all their unfree crap.
On the post: Armenia Decides It Needs Incredibly Strict Copyright Laws
Re: Re: Re: Excellent
On the post: Armenia Decides It Needs Incredibly Strict Copyright Laws
Re: Re: Excellent
On the post: Successful Content Creators Who Use YouTube To Get Around Gatekeepers Worried About Viacom Lawsuit
copyright criminalizes competition
Yes. But it is about copyright, because that's what copyright is for: eliminating competition.
On the post: Four Years In, How Successful Has Hollywood's Attack On The Pirate Bay Been?
Re: Re: Re: Re:comparing so-called piracy to drug dealing ?
On the post: Effort Underway For Defensive Patent Pool For Open Source Developers
Re: Re: Re: What about those who don't believe in patents at all?
On the post: Costa Rican Money Might Infringe On Artist's Copyright?
Dear World,
You're welcome.
On the post: Now That The Exaflood's Debunked, Fear The Exacloud!
names
I've always thought of it as "infopocalypse," but apparently some people use that term to mean something else.
On the post: Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here we go...
No, they don't.
On the post: Avatar Blu-Ray Customers Not Enjoying Their DRM-Crippled Discs
Re: Citizens Rebellion from Anti-Piracy STupidity On Recorded Media
On the post: Avatar Blu-Ray Customers Not Enjoying Their DRM-Crippled Discs
Re: Citizens Rebellion from Anti-Piracy STupidity On Recorded Media
On the post: Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM
Competition
I hope other competitors to Netflix, iTunes, etc. come forward to stress the value of their DRM-free services. This is how competition is supposed to work. If it's clear there is demand for DRM-free VOD, ultimately even the "big guys" will see it's in their interest to offer it too. But first audiences need to know what DRM is, and that DRM-free alternatives exist.
On the post: Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM
Re: DRM != BAD in all situations
If it were available via Netflix streaming, it would fall within my daily routine of adding movies to my queue to watch. As a bonus, you'd actually get paid for it. I know I can add it to my physical DVD queue [and probably will eventually], but I'm an 'instant gratification' kind of guy. :) At this point probably 95% of my Netflix viewing is of streamed movies. In the last year I've only gone through about 4 physical DVDs from Netflix.
Doubletwist, your paragraph above sums up why this decision was so difficult for me. I wouldn't fault anyone for deciding the other way, including myself. This was one of the least clear dilemmas I've faced around "Sita." I desperately want "Sita" to be as conveniently accessible as possible. Netflix's VOD would have been so good, if not for the DRM.
I should add that I wasn't really tempted by the money. The $4,620 was offered to the distributor, FilmKaravan; I would have only received half of that, $2310. That's nice, but what I really wanted was the eyeballs Netflix would have offered.
On the post: Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM
Re: Re: Re:
http://blog.ninapaley.com/2009/12/07/correction-again/
In fact "Sita"'s Free license has made the film MORE profitable for me.
Commerce good. Monopolies bad.
Next >>