Did Digg do something?

Heheh, if you’ve been over at TechMeme you know all about the Digg story so I won’t even bother putting stuff about that on my link blog.

There’s an interesting Silverlight Hype Backlash going, I posted a couple of things about that. MindManager 7 is coming out. So is Mathmatica 6. Oprah has video of Google. Splashcast is pissing off podcasters because they are rehosting their audio and video. All that and more on my link blog.

Over on ScobleShow there’s a cool app for photographers that’ll help you make photo stories. More to come later, got an interview with Scott Guthrie of Microsoft coming up later tonight.

More than 600 emails waiting. Sorry, gotta run…

58 thoughts on “Did Digg do something?

  1. http://www.livemetallica.com/show.asp?show=132

    Here’s a great example of a well known band that is selling music directly w/o iTunes or an intermediary.

    They could have used any DRM system available, but they chose to sell their music as DRM-Free MP3 and FLAC audio.
    People do not like DRM, not even the bands.
    I’m sorry to disappoint you all. The only people who like DRM are greedy programmers and their bosses.

    “this time, it will be 100% secure”

    Right? How many billions will go on “this time”, next time?
    It’s ridiculous, and it gets purchased anyway because companies would rather lie, than face the truth.
    I could save them billions right here on this blog. Do not purchase any more media encryption programming, it’s a financial loss 100%, and that is the truth. They should pay me a million bucks just for that 1 sentence of consulting. That’s how powerful it is.

  2. http://www.livemetallica.com/show.asp?show=132

    Here’s a great example of a well known band that is selling music directly w/o iTunes or an intermediary.

    They could have used any DRM system available, but they chose to sell their music as DRM-Free MP3 and FLAC audio.
    People do not like DRM, not even the bands.
    I’m sorry to disappoint you all. The only people who like DRM are greedy programmers and their bosses.

    “this time, it will be 100% secure”

    Right? How many billions will go on “this time”, next time?
    It’s ridiculous, and it gets purchased anyway because companies would rather lie, than face the truth.
    I could save them billions right here on this blog. Do not purchase any more media encryption programming, it’s a financial loss 100%, and that is the truth. They should pay me a million bucks just for that 1 sentence of consulting. That’s how powerful it is.

  3. “If we feel against it, we should revolt against the government (or the legal body).”

    No, because monopolies and market associations are leveraging market control to push these restrictions on us as a defacto standard whether we like it or not. I am a musician, I have released a CD. I have a 24 track recording studio.

    I also know record labels and people who work there that have asked to be removed from the RIAA list. The RIAA still claims to be working on behalf of them.

    This is not a government problem. Those companies which have the control of the industry should reject this type of DRM. Silverlight is a bad example of this technology.

    Please visit: http://www.defectivebydesign.org and learn more about it.

    I was at MIT a couple months ago in Boston, and this subject came up as an entire segment of the day of speeches. Some extremely smart people dislike the restrictions on fair use.

    You act as if all technology companies are disparate and everything is unrelated. Like the artist themselves are responsible for the MPAA and RIAA. They are not. These are organizations unto themselves and exist as seperate entities. There is also ITAA and ITAC which exist as market associations in IT.

    The artist/actor as a matter of fact has no say in these technologies or their development. Those who leech off of artists and have no talent to speak of on the other hand, they are the ones behind this. Not the artists themselves.

  4. “If we feel against it, we should revolt against the government (or the legal body).”

    No, because monopolies and market associations are leveraging market control to push these restrictions on us as a defacto standard whether we like it or not. I am a musician, I have released a CD. I have a 24 track recording studio.

    I also know record labels and people who work there that have asked to be removed from the RIAA list. The RIAA still claims to be working on behalf of them.

    This is not a government problem. Those companies which have the control of the industry should reject this type of DRM. Silverlight is a bad example of this technology.

    Please visit: http://www.defectivebydesign.org and learn more about it.

    I was at MIT a couple months ago in Boston, and this subject came up as an entire segment of the day of speeches. Some extremely smart people dislike the restrictions on fair use.

    You act as if all technology companies are disparate and everything is unrelated. Like the artist themselves are responsible for the MPAA and RIAA. They are not. These are organizations unto themselves and exist as seperate entities. There is also ITAA and ITAC which exist as market associations in IT.

    The artist/actor as a matter of fact has no say in these technologies or their development. Those who leech off of artists and have no talent to speak of on the other hand, they are the ones behind this. Not the artists themselves.

  5. Chris: Content creators don’t have freedom to do what they want with their content?

    With regard to the RIAA/MPAA, its the government which should do something if they are displaying monopolistic behaviour. If we feel against it, we should revolt against the government (or the legal body).

    In a free market (especially one like today with easier distribution systems like today’s) wouldn’t the majority of artists have moved away from the big labels if they never added value?

  6. Chris: Content creators don’t have freedom to do what they want with their content?

    With regard to the RIAA/MPAA, its the government which should do something if they are displaying monopolistic behaviour. If we feel against it, we should revolt against the government (or the legal body).

    In a free market (especially one like today with easier distribution systems like today’s) wouldn’t the majority of artists have moved away from the big labels if they never added value?

  7. What hurts the credibility of the “Fair Use” crowd is that when HD-DVD codes were ripped, they were posted on a particular site, and within one week, dozens of the actuall movies were available on BitTorrent. And the “Fair Use” crowd didn’t condemn the latter, in fact they applauded it (see slashdot and digg threads).

    The fact is, there’s a social contract between content creators and content consumers. Which is, consumers can use the creations of the creators under terms set forth by the creators. Since the rise of the internet, a HUGE proportion of the consumers decided to break that contract, and forced DRM onto the rest of us.

    I don’t like DRM, but I hate piracy even more (having worked on software in the past that got pirated). I’d like to see the Fair Use crowd condemn piracy at least some of the time. But they usually turn a closed eye regarding it, or make claims about piracy increasing sales, or advocate piracy themselves in the name of civil disobedience (MLK would role in his grave to see freeloaders comparing getting digital content for free with the Civil Rights Movement).

  8. What hurts the credibility of the “Fair Use” crowd is that when HD-DVD codes were ripped, they were posted on a particular site, and within one week, dozens of the actuall movies were available on BitTorrent. And the “Fair Use” crowd didn’t condemn the latter, in fact they applauded it (see slashdot and digg threads).

    The fact is, there’s a social contract between content creators and content consumers. Which is, consumers can use the creations of the creators under terms set forth by the creators. Since the rise of the internet, a HUGE proportion of the consumers decided to break that contract, and forced DRM onto the rest of us.

    I don’t like DRM, but I hate piracy even more (having worked on software in the past that got pirated). I’d like to see the Fair Use crowd condemn piracy at least some of the time. But they usually turn a closed eye regarding it, or make claims about piracy increasing sales, or advocate piracy themselves in the name of civil disobedience (MLK would role in his grave to see freeloaders comparing getting digital content for free with the Civil Rights Movement).

  9. @13

    “What if the content under question here was child pornography?”

    We started with fair use, and we ended up with distributing child pornography to prove a point. How did you get from here to there?

    Couldn’t people just as easily distribute pay for play child pornography where they limit your right to copy or use it on another media player?

    What does the legality or lack thereof, of the content have to do with DRM or fair use?

    OK, that was a rhetorical question, you see, it has no relational bearing what so ever other than to sully the message of freedom to use our own purchased media the way we want.

    Here’s what Bill Gates thinks:
    http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/12/14/bill-gates-on-the-future-of-drm/
    “People should just buy a cd and rip it. You are legal then.”

    Here’s what Steve Jobs thinks:
    http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/

    Just about the only people that think you shouldn’t be able to re-encode or back up your media are the people who MAKE AACS encryption or MAKE the failed technology that boosts the price of CD and DVD players by at least $10 a piece. THOSE people HATE fair use, because they rely on this failed encryption to buy their nice Italian sports cars, and bling bling.

    Do I think that industry is legit or should be supported? No, as Sampy on C9 recently said, they should start doing Perl CGI scripts for a living because at least that would help society.

  10. @13

    “What if the content under question here was child pornography?”

    We started with fair use, and we ended up with distributing child pornography to prove a point. How did you get from here to there?

    Couldn’t people just as easily distribute pay for play child pornography where they limit your right to copy or use it on another media player?

    What does the legality or lack thereof, of the content have to do with DRM or fair use?

    OK, that was a rhetorical question, you see, it has no relational bearing what so ever other than to sully the message of freedom to use our own purchased media the way we want.

    Here’s what Bill Gates thinks:
    http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/12/14/bill-gates-on-the-future-of-drm/
    “People should just buy a cd and rip it. You are legal then.”

    Here’s what Steve Jobs thinks:
    http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/

    Just about the only people that think you shouldn’t be able to re-encode or back up your media are the people who MAKE AACS encryption or MAKE the failed technology that boosts the price of CD and DVD players by at least $10 a piece. THOSE people HATE fair use, because they rely on this failed encryption to buy their nice Italian sports cars, and bling bling.

    Do I think that industry is legit or should be supported? No, as Sampy on C9 recently said, they should start doing Perl CGI scripts for a living because at least that would help society.

  11. I think the crux of the issue is that the community there wasn’t willing to let individual members be threatened over copyright, more than it was an assertion of any right to said information.

  12. I think the crux of the issue is that the community there wasn’t willing to let individual members be threatened over copyright, more than it was an assertion of any right to said information.

  13. @12 We aren’t talking about the DMV, are we? Try to stay focused. You didn’t answer my question. I’ll ask it again: what guarantee does the copyright holder have that you will ONLY limit it to personal use?

  14. @12 We aren’t talking about the DMV, are we? Try to stay focused. You didn’t answer my question. I’ll ask it again: what guarantee does the copyright holder have that you will ONLY limit it to personal use?

  15. I’m totally scratching my head on this Silverlight thing. As far as I can tell, all the demos are just flashy (no pun intended) movie players. I can get better quality trailers on the Apple site.

    When I tried to download the demo on my Mac using Firefox, I got a .exe file. Microsoft has some serious ground to make up to win the hearts and mind of the open source crowd. Name dropping Ruby isn’t the way to do it.

  16. I’m totally scratching my head on this Silverlight thing. As far as I can tell, all the demos are just flashy (no pun intended) movie players. I can get better quality trailers on the Apple site.

    When I tried to download the demo on my Mac using Firefox, I got a .exe file. Microsoft has some serious ground to make up to win the hearts and mind of the open source crowd. Name dropping Ruby isn’t the way to do it.

  17. Ooooeer, I love MindManager. Yay. I half market that for them, great organizational software.

  18. Ooooeer, I love MindManager. Yay. I half market that for them, great organizational software.

  19. Bar: I agree with you. Letting the mob go free isn’t very smart either. That said it’s a long way from sharing a DRM code to child pornography. I seriously doubt that the mob would be so unanimous in sharing that.

  20. Bar: I agree with you. Letting the mob go free isn’t very smart either. That said it’s a long way from sharing a DRM code to child pornography. I seriously doubt that the mob would be so unanimous in sharing that.

  21. I’ll have to agree with the inmates running the asylum comparison.

    I dislike DRM as much as the next guy. It tends to be a pain in the butt. But the point that seems to be lost on a lot of people is the fact that I don’t have an inate RIGHT to content, either legally or morally. I have the right to use any content that I choose to access in accordance with the terms that the copyright owner has provided the content under. I don’t have a god given right to watch any movie or listen to any song. I don’t have the god given right to copy something. Yes, I’d like to have the ability. But if the copyright holder says “you can use this content, but only under these terms” I have to decide whether or not it is worthwhile.

    So, although the whole Digg mob is an interesting phenomenon, I find it rather disturbing and disgusting. What if the content under question here was child pornography? If a large enough mob decided that we should all have the “right” to that content, laws be damned, does that mean that it has to be made available?

    Web 2.0 is great. But like any other social phenomenon it has a dark side.

  22. I’ll have to agree with the inmates running the asylum comparison.

    I dislike DRM as much as the next guy. It tends to be a pain in the butt. But the point that seems to be lost on a lot of people is the fact that I don’t have an inate RIGHT to content, either legally or morally. I have the right to use any content that I choose to access in accordance with the terms that the copyright owner has provided the content under. I don’t have a god given right to watch any movie or listen to any song. I don’t have the god given right to copy something. Yes, I’d like to have the ability. But if the copyright holder says “you can use this content, but only under these terms” I have to decide whether or not it is worthwhile.

    So, although the whole Digg mob is an interesting phenomenon, I find it rather disturbing and disgusting. What if the content under question here was child pornography? If a large enough mob decided that we should all have the “right” to that content, laws be damned, does that mean that it has to be made available?

    Web 2.0 is great. But like any other social phenomenon it has a dark side.

  23. @10

    When the DMV grants you a drivers license, what guarantees them that you won’t go run over some elderly people because you feel like it?

    If your idea of fair use is nazi like digital media supervision, then you sir, have a serious problem, the same one Microsoft seems to share. Why is any music sold at all? Why do people use iTunes instead of stealing it? They certainly could steal all of their music, so why?

    There is a MULTIBILLION DOLLAR IT market behind digital media encryption. This market drives these trends with false offerings and lies. That is why.

  24. @10

    When the DMV grants you a drivers license, what guarantees them that you won’t go run over some elderly people because you feel like it?

    If your idea of fair use is nazi like digital media supervision, then you sir, have a serious problem, the same one Microsoft seems to share. Why is any music sold at all? Why do people use iTunes instead of stealing it? They certainly could steal all of their music, so why?

    There is a MULTIBILLION DOLLAR IT market behind digital media encryption. This market drives these trends with false offerings and lies. That is why.

  25. @8 So, what guarantee does the copyright holder have that you will ONLY do that? How can you guarantee the copyright holder you won’t redistribute that content?

  26. @8 So, what guarantee does the copyright holder have that you will ONLY do that? How can you guarantee the copyright holder you won’t redistribute that content?

  27. @7 Exactly what “freedom” would that be? Freedom to redistibute content you have no legal right to?

  28. @7 Exactly what “freedom” would that be? Freedom to redistibute content you have no legal right to?

  29. Louis, getting rid of DRM is not about piracy. It is about freedom. It is about getting to a day when no one is afraid of the RIAA or MPAA and we can safely share media across any platform. It’s about fair use, being able to watch your media on Linux or anywhere you want after you purchased it.

    DRM is not hurting pirates, it’s hurting legitimate users. Posting an AACS key collectively in a way that is difficult to stop will only help the MPAA and RIAA cease this avenue of hurting consumers.

  30. Louis, getting rid of DRM is not about piracy. It is about freedom. It is about getting to a day when no one is afraid of the RIAA or MPAA and we can safely share media across any platform. It’s about fair use, being able to watch your media on Linux or anywhere you want after you purchased it.

    DRM is not hurting pirates, it’s hurting legitimate users. Posting an AACS key collectively in a way that is difficult to stop will only help the MPAA and RIAA cease this avenue of hurting consumers.

  31. Robert, TechMeme is nuts over the Digg mob swarm. It’s been a crazy 24 hours.

    I did fill up my Link Blog with some of the better ones, but your approach makes sense. My concern about the Digg situation is that the inmates are in charge of the asylum.

    What if they collectively decide to post up illegal videos of the Simpsons Movie before it hits the big screen, or Windows Vista cracks? This isn’t “Viva La Revolucion” or anything… That’s why I see it as a bad precedent.

  32. Robert, TechMeme is nuts over the Digg mob swarm. It’s been a crazy 24 hours.

    I did fill up my Link Blog with some of the better ones, but your approach makes sense. My concern about the Digg situation is that the inmates are in charge of the asylum.

    What if they collectively decide to post up illegal videos of the Simpsons Movie before it hits the big screen, or Windows Vista cracks? This isn’t “Viva La Revolucion” or anything… That’s why I see it as a bad precedent.

  33. http://blog.digg.com/?p=74

    I love how Kevin puts the AACS code as the title of his blog entry. What if Bill Gates or Ray Ozzie had the guts or courage to stand up to the MPAA that Kevin Rose does? What if Macrosoft had the guts that Steve Jobs did when he introduced no DRM music in ITunes, which MS quickly cloned like the borg they are?

    Silverlight has MASSIVE DRM built in and MS would love nothing more than to push services like youtube out of the loop in order to restore what it started in media formats with it’s hollywood partners.

    09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
    09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
    09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0

  34. http://blog.digg.com/?p=74

    I love how Kevin puts the AACS code as the title of his blog entry. What if Bill Gates or Ray Ozzie had the guts or courage to stand up to the MPAA that Kevin Rose does? What if Macrosoft had the guts that Steve Jobs did when he introduced no DRM music in ITunes, which MS quickly cloned like the borg they are?

    Silverlight has MASSIVE DRM built in and MS would love nothing more than to push services like youtube out of the loop in order to restore what it started in media formats with it’s hollywood partners.

    09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
    09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
    09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0

  35. Hi Robert, we actually aren’t rehosting audio, just video if it need to be transcoded for availability in a Flash player. Other complaints include failure to expose original RSS feeds, insufficiently clear links back and subscriber reporting – all of which we’re going to have fixed more or less in the blink of an eye. Yay!

  36. Hi Robert, we actually aren’t rehosting audio, just video if it need to be transcoded for availability in a Flash player. Other complaints include failure to expose original RSS feeds, insufficiently clear links back and subscriber reporting – all of which we’re going to have fixed more or less in the blink of an eye. Yay!

Comments are closed.