RE: [rumori] Re: Burned?

From: Sam Stephens (
Date: Sun Apr 28 2002 - 21:18:24 PDT

Copying is a poor measure of the value or worth people place on a piece of
digital media.

If a person has a media file on their computer, and then copies that file to
a portable device so they can use the file at home and on the road, should
that count as another copy. What if they then give that device with the copy
on it to a friend. There is no way any DRM(*) system can distinguish between
personal copying and copying between different parties.

Should an artist who releases media that is downloaded by 10 thousand and
only viewed more than once by one hundred be compensated more than an artist
who has a thousand downloads that are all burnt to CD and listened to often.
A DRM system would see any copy as being the same. Unless it tracks not just
copying, but also listening/playing files.

Lastly if one thousand copies of a two hour movie you spent three years
working on are made, and one thousand copies of a five minute short I spent
two weeks working on are made, is it fair we both get compensated equally.
Or should I get three times the compensation for someone downloading one of
my tracks in three parts, than if they downloaded the track as one file. The
only way around this is to have the DRM system value different files
differently - and I am not happy having a central authority place value on
my work. I don't trust markets, but I'd rather the market value art than

These are a few major issues to be seen with compensation by amount of
copies made.

This is without mentioning the need to enforce DRM on all new copy capable
devices, and the need to trust the administrating government. Do you trust
the Bush government to implement this, and no more? Really?

As has been said, it's an interesting idea. But I don't think it's feasible.


(*) digital rights management

-----Original Message-----
From: Don Joyce []
Sent: Monday, 29 April 2002 5:04 a.m.
Subject: Re: [rumori] Re: Burned?

Sure Steev, good ideas are sometimes dangerous, but they're also better bets
than bad ideas which are also dangerous. Nothing is going to stop these very
same fears of yours (and mine) from being implemented in the present
Internet, and in fact that is exactly what is being planned by many private
interests. So I opt for Gov. oversight in a good idea than no public
oversight in a bad one.

Do you object to number recall on your telephone? There are plenty of useful
and desirable reasons to monitor media traffic without the participant's
identities being archived anywhere. I'm suggesting we do that BY LAW instead
of leaving it all up to the selfish and uncontrolable whims of private
commerce, who will do it for sure under the guise of "marketing data"
eventually. DJ Negativland

>on Sat, 27 Apr 2002 Don Joyce told me:
>->My idea has nothing to do with copy protection - there would be none
>->on-line because all Net content could be free for the taking. Copying
>->content there would become ENCOURAGED(!) because the more you are
>->copied, the more you will be paid. It's a complete reversal of the
>->status quo, eliminating the entire concept of digital "crime" and
>->effectively removing the entire concept of copyright enforcement from
>->on-line activities. As for tracking, I see only a little ugh, not a
>->big or even important one, because it would ONLY read what you are
>->doing in terms of content transferrance, NOT that it is you
>->doing it or why. Neither would it stop you from doing whatever
>->you want to do, and it
>that's great if you could get it to happen exactly that way. i'm just
>saying, it would only take a little bit more to *add* features to the
>system that would invade privacy and prohibit certain behaviors. so
>while you're pushing for that, the corporations that want more are
>pretending to help you and work with you and then at the last minute
>they're pushing through their big-brother add-ons. it's just too
>dangerous, IMHO.
>To be clear: you're talking about a great theory, i agree, but I'm
>talking about what would (or might) happen if it really turned into
>public policy. scary. I'd rather just not go there. I don't want my
>computer or my walkman or my TV sending any information to anything
>anywhere, for any reason, unless i tell it to.
>Rumori, the Discussion List
>to unsubscribe, send mail to
>with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
>Rumori list archives & other information are at

Rumori, the Discussion List
to unsubscribe, send mail to
with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
Rumori list archives & other information are at

Rumori, the Discussion List
to unsubscribe, send mail to
with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
Rumori list archives & other information are at

Home | Detrivores | Rhizome | Archive | Projects | Contact | Help | Text Index

[an error occurred while processing this directive] N© Sharerights extended to all.