DRM and the PRO-IP Act - Limited time opportunity? Shameless self-promotion?

[Oren Beck]

In a better vanished world? The concept of a person retaining ability
to use what had been paid for in a good faith transaction was not
questionable. Now with these cases it has become so questionable that
DRM itself may be rendered unmarketable.

IF the consumer base having that click or not freedom on DRM locked
"IP" has a bad enough association for DRM? Uh- wait- This "DRM" ain't
that how youknowwho lost $$$ on all the stuff he and his family
"bought" ???  And while much of the "Soccer Mom"  or "Family Man"
adult world may not YET equate the term "DRM" with all this at the
moment, we can bet safely on a major screamfest Real Soon Now....
Hell- if they time this they can have it be breaking news close enough
before the "Black Friday"  sales as to tank those too! SO all the
plans for selling DRM required devices and content as a major $$ this
"Black Friday" will be competing with horror stories. Like:

"I lost ALL my downloaded stuff- $$$ worth and it says I have no
recourse for my money"

Those types of  articles and news stories might not be to enticing a
sales pitch for more DRM locked stuff eh??

Sounds grim for the DRM cheerleaders. Their "Hail Mary" play might
HAVE been a pre-planned and clearly explained contingency plan for
what is becoming a plague.
The fumble on not having done so earlier may be viewed in history as
an industrial strength suicide. I can close the crematory oven hatch
on "Server Based DRM" with one flat fact. The logistics of basing
one's future on greed as opposed to need always lose in the end.

On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Leo Mauler <webgiant at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Much as I might try to sympathize with these folks, I don't have a lot of sympathy for someone who bought into a system which basically told them "we don't want you to freely listen to music you buy from us" and now is being denied the ability to freely listen to the music they bought.
>
> Rather, a big "we told you so" needs to go out from the anti-DRM folks to all those people who thought that being denied the right to freely listen to their own music would /never/ result in them being denied the right to freely listen to their own music *at all*.
>
> People bought into DRM (and read their T&Cs, right?) and now are getting *exactly what they paid for*.  Its the free market in action: an informed public read their T&C (thus the informed part) and still agreed to buy music which could be taken away from them at any moment without a refund of the purchase price.  Caveat emptor and similar Latin warnings.
>
> Besides which, economists will rejoice in Yahoo, Wal-Mart, and others' tactics here: now customers are required to purchase their DRMed music *all over again*!  What a shot in the arm for the drooping economy!
>
> --- On Sun, 9/28/08, Sean Crago <cragos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> When I left KC to serve in Kathmandu I lost my address
>> near Gladstone. As such, I reverted to the congressional
>> district where I grew up in Illinois.  You guys probably
>> cover four or five districts in MO and KS, though, so I
>> figured I'd drop you a link to the open letter I just
>> hammered out to mine.  If Yahoo, MSN, WalMart, et al are
>> going to pull the plug on their DRM servers right before
>> the passage of the (still far from perfect) PRO-IP act,
>> why not use the opportunity to get ammendments passed
>> that allow consumers to bypass the DRM? If it's getting
>> railroaded through anyway, let's turn it to good: The
>> DMCA trust should go both ways, if it's to be retained
>> at all: Consumers shouldn't get their shit turned off if
>> they respect the DMCA's provision preventing them from
>> unlocking their files.
>>
>> http://mrzaius.com/blog/?p=108
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kclug mailing list
> Kclug at kclug.org
> http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
>



-- 
Oren Beck

816.729.3645