|
| Friday, January 21, 2005 |
 |
Doors of re-perception 
TGISF
| | I "flipped" the blog to Saturday (today as I write this), but something went sideways (my fault, I'm sure), and now I seem to be stuck in Friday. |
| | We'll work it out, I'm sure. Meanwhile, I'll just keep posting yesterday. |
You can't manage freedom
| | What I am trying to highlight is that while proponents and opponents of DRM solutions both see the world in black and white, they may want to start a dialogue and realize that there's a lot of gray areas out there. |
| | Tristan frames his case mostly in terms of his own usage. Which is fine, as far as that goes. But the frame that matters most is much bigger than that. It's the change of copyright in the U.S. from an opt-in to an opt-out system; and the damage this new copyright system is already causing to free speech, free markets and free culture. |
| | The damage already done by the pro-DRM forces verges on the incalculable. And it's far more important than whatever (frankly, debatable) harms the pro-DRM forces have suffered from peer-to-peer file sharing over the Net. |
| | It is our duty as writers, scholars, and educators to make it clear to our students, our peers, our congressional representatives, and the public that copyright is a bargain, a good deal for everyone, when all interests are considered. As both copyright producers and users, we in the academy are in a good position to outline the complexity and benefits of such a deal. And we are in a good position to highlight the abuses that copyright holders have engaged in since 1998. We must be blunt about the current system¹s threats to free speech, intellectual freedom, and the free flow of information. We must be careful not to be trapped into nihilistic rhetoric about the "end of copyright." Copyright need not end if we can rehabilitate and rehumanize it. Our culture and democracy depend on it. |
| | As a label, DRM has two problems. One is that it requires a top-down DRM perspective on a peer-to-peer world. The other is that it is understood by its proponents as a way to preserve value by crippling technology and its use. It's a fundamentally obsolete notion, a eugenics for our time. |
| | The issues involved need to be reframed in terms of A) The Net's basic nature, which won't change; and B) the need for sane and useful copyright law. B requires copyright reform. The pro-DRM forces are dead-set against that reform. And that, sad to say, makes them an enemy of many freedoms. |
Smarter living through podcasting
| | During this one it hit me why: It's done as a deep, serious show aimed at a professional in the area covered (in this case the IT world), it's not dumbed down, it's actually "smarted up". |
Loose talk
From Faulkner to Grisham to... this
| | You may wonder why anyone would do this. I am doing this because I am a stay at home mother and a full time student; and with only one income int the house money is tight. I heard about a man doing this on the radio and getting over $ 25,000.00 for putting an add on his forehead. I don't expect to get anywhere near that much, but I couldn't think of a better conversation starter that a logo tattooed across my forehead or a more fun way to make a little extra cash. |
| | Thanks to an alert local OSSI member for the pointer. |
discuss
Copyright 2009 The Doc Searls Weblog
|
