The Giving Tree… In The Age Of DRM
from the well,-that-was-quick dept
It appears that xkcd has decided to do a modern update on the Shel Silverstein classic, The Giving Tree, in the age of DRM:
While this may just be a little comic joke, the larger point is worth highlighting. In the age of DRM, things that might have been considered normal “sharing” in the past are no longer allowed, despite being easier than ever in reality. That should trouble people.
Filed Under: drm, giving tree, sharing, shel silverstein, xkcd
Comments on “The Giving Tree… In The Age Of DRM”
Is that…Is that a shoutout to you? Awesome! :p
; (
I am troubled
Re: ; (
I AM ALIVE
Re: Re: ; (
I AM A UNICORN
Re: Re: Re: ; (
I AM YOUR FATHER
Re: Re: Re:2 ; (
I AM SPARTACUS!
Re: Re: Re:3 ; (
I AM THE WALRUS!
Re: Re: Re:4 ; (
I am the Lord thy God and though shalt have no other gods before me.
Re: Re: Re:5 ; (
I AM THE GOD AFTER YOU!
HAVE ME!
Re: Re: Re:4 ; (
I could be the walrus, but I’d still have to bum rides off people
I'd tap that ass...
and copy some sweet DRM-free literature.
http://www.xkcd.com/398/
The Giving Tree is such a sad story 🙁
That should trouble people.
I’m not troubled. It only took me a few minutes to find a torrent that included a copy of “The Giving Tree”.
Empires will rise and fall, technology will march ever onwards, but human nature will never change. Even the threat of death isn’t enough to stop people from being people.
We should be troubled? Why? If DRM was effective and respected, it would be easy to enough to legally establish lending rights, fair use, and so on as part of the system. The resistance to DRM of any sort makes it incredibly hard to balance both sides, which means each side takes it’s most aggressive posture.
That gets you nasty locked up DRM on one side, and torrent sites on the other.
The freetards need to realize they are as much a cause of the problem as a solution.
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Sep 27th, 2011 @ 5:43am
I see, so the problem isn’t that Big Content is trying to force everyone to relinquish their rights so they can lease said rights back to them on terms favorable to Big Content. No, the problem is that anyone thinks they should defend their rights. It all makes sense now, I should just roll over and take it quietly until the copyright lobby is satisfied and then they will surely use their position to legally reestablish rights they worked hard to demolish…
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Sep 27th, 2011 @ 5:43am
Silly man, don’t you understand that the only right is the right for Big Content to make money?
If you want any rights, you have to stop struggling and just bite the pillow like a good boy. Then maybe we will grant you some small portion of what you foolishly thought was yours by nature.
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Sep 27th, 2011 @ 5:43am
Idiots like you make this very hard.
” the only right is the right for Big Content to make money”
BULLSHIT! TOTAL FUCKING BULLSHIT!
The only right is that those who create something have control over it. They have the right to sell it, to market it, and to distribute it as they see fit. That is the only “right”.
Do you think you have the right to force someone to give you something they create just because you want it, regardless if they want to or not? Why does everything have to be on your terms only?
Sorry, you are the type of fuckhead that makes it very hard for progress to happen.
Re: Re: Re:2 Response to: Anonymous Coward on Sep 27th, 2011 @ 5:43am
No. You have the right to produce. That is all.
Everything else is up for negotiation and thus is not a right, but a privilege.
Every good capitalist should know as much.
Re: Re: Re:2 Response to: Anonymous Coward on Sep 27th, 2011 @ 5:43am
Do you think you have the right to force someone to give you something they create just because you want it, regardless if they want to or not?
Yes. That’s the way copyright was designed to work. An author gets a LIMITED time to profit from their work before they’re forced to give up their rights and the work becomes public domain. Now that copyrights last for the entire life of the author, plus another 70-90 years, they may as well be unlimited. Nothing created in my lifetime will ever become public domain. Nothing that Disney has ever created is public domain, despite the fact that many of their highest grossing films were based on public domain stories, for which Disney didn’t pay a single cent.
Why does everything have to be on your terms only?
Conversely, why does everything have to be strictly on the corporations’ terms? They want vastly extended copyright lengths, they get them. They want region restrictions on video, they get them. They want (legal) streaming video prevented from being offered to the public, they get it. They want the government to pass disproportionately severe laws for copyright infringement, they get them. They want law enforcement agencies to take resources away from investigating more serious crimes and go after people who are only hurting their profit margin, they get it.
If the corporations had their way, every DVD/Blu-Ray player would have an internet connection so that the parent company could be notified every time you played a disc and they could bill you for it.
What am I saying? If the corporations had their way, home video wouldn’t even exist!
Re: Re: Re:2 Response to: Anonymous Coward on Sep 27th, 2011 @ 5:43am
You have the right to control what you create. You can keep it to yourself, or you can release it to others. If you keep it to yourself, you can control it. If you release it to others, you can’t.
If you choose the latter option anyway, that’s your problem.
Re: Re: Re:2 Response to: Anonymous Coward on Sep 27th, 2011 @ 5:43am
And your intellectually dishonest, name calling, profanity laced tirade, makes it hard to have a dialog.
Re: Re: Re:2 Response to: Anonymous Coward on Sep 27th, 2011 @ 5:43am
The right of control automatically limits my rights to do with my legally purchased property as I please.
In some backward countries I am not allowed to move my CD collection to my iPod, or my paperbook collection to my kindle, or my DVD collection to my GalaxyTab.
I can sit on my legally bought computer, use a legally purchased software development tool, and the code I write totally on my own can be infringing.
Now, of course some rights are above my rights to do whatever I want with my stuff. For example, I can not take my GalaxyTab and hack at someone’s neck with the thin bit. That would violate that persons right to Life.
So it’s really a question of how you rank rights. I think that Copyright should be a bit lower on the list. You think it’s just fine.
The fact is, that currently Copyright is ranked above such things as Privacy, parts of Property rights and of course Free Speech. And by the looks of it, the ambition from certain parties is to push Copyright even further up the list.
Progress, sadly, occurs in spite of Copyright, not because of it.
And don’t be sorry, I thoroughly enjoy being me.
Re: Re: Re:3 Response to: Anonymous Coward on Sep 27th, 2011 @ 5:43am
The mistake you make is thinking that you “purchased” it. You didn’t. You purchased certain limited rights. You can exercise those limited rights, and no others (within the limit of the law).
The rest of your post is just the usual Tardian crap that surfaces here. Copyright doesn’t rank above free speech, I am not even sure what scale you are using. Progress occurs regardless of your actions, small that they are.
Re: Re: Re:4 Response to: Anonymous Coward on Sep 27th, 2011 @ 5:43am
You just proved my statement – I don’t own things that I buy! I did not sign a lease form, or rental papers, when I bought my CD. I bought it!
If you can’t see how twisted that is, I dont know what to say.
Re: Re:
why should i respect something that doesn’t respect me?
coprights, patents, DRM… none of these are respectful in any way at all to anyone except those want control and/or cash
this free “tard” is smart enough to realize that the opposites of control & free-flow is nearly impossible to balance properly
a proper balance between the two would mean that the control half is free-flowing enough to not really be controlled anymore and the free-flow half would be controlled enough to … not really be free-flowing anymore
i wouldn’t really be satisfied with that sort of thing as a “freetard” it’s just not “free” enough for me
and i know that the “copytarded” side wouldn’t really satisfied either, there simply wouldn’t be enough control for them
Re: Re: Re:
so in other words things got the way they are because both sides have directly conflicting interests
no amount of giving in, balancing or compromise will acquire those interests, they just opposite and that’s pretty much what it comes down to, either there’s a clear winner someday or the fight continues on
Re: Re: Re: Re:
oh, and hardly nobody on either side is going to fall for the balance card, balance just sets the middle ground for a deeper push in the direction of choice
Re: Re: Re:
“this free “tard” is smart enough to realize that the opposites of control & free-flow is nearly impossible to balance properly”
Apparently tard you aren’t smart enough to understand where the content comes from, and why you are busy shooting yourself in the foot. The idea of “free info no matter what” pretty much takes the business model out of making content.
Enjoy Sita Sings the Blues again….
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then make a new business model that works?
Reality changes, either your company adapts or it dies. Thats capitalism.
You are a talented farmer. One day the sun has a cosmic quantum hiccup and carrots will no longer grow.
Would you find a different way to profit from your farming talents, like say potatoes or beets, or would you try to fix it with legislation?
There is the Internet. It came and the world changed. It will kill businesses. Dozens. Hundreds.
Just like the priting press, the automated weaving machine, the electrical refridgerator and countless other breakthroughs since mankind discovered fire.
Adapt or die. Stop slowing the rest of us down.
Re: Re: Re: The big red herring.
> Apparently tard you aren’t smart enough to understand where the content comes from, and why
“Content” is a derivative of the commons and of 10 thousand years of combined human experience and effort.
“Consumption” is really a side show. The really important thing is that future generations are free to create without some old crank like Heinlein trying to hijack them and leech off of them.
Re: Re:
We should be troubled? Why? If DRM was effective and respected, it would be easy to enough to legally establish lending rights, fair use, and so on as part of the system. The resistance to DRM of any sort makes it incredibly hard to balance both sides, which means each side takes it’s most aggressive posture.
The entertainment companies aren’t interested in “balance”. They want all the control, period. For example, look at the DVD standard and region codes. Region codes aren’t designed to stop people from making copies, they’re designed to stop people from playing 100% legally purchased movies in a different region. How is that in any way, fair or balanced? What about the HDCP part of the HDMI standard? Pirates just use a computer to rip the movie straight off the disc, while average consumers are limited to only using hardware approved by the entertainment industry. Is that fair?
Re: Re:
You’re hilarious. Balance? Haha. I’m sure if we started respecting DRM then we’d find a nice balance. Then over the course of 200 years, that balance would shift to be no where near recognizable to what it started out as, and our great great grandchildren would wish we had nipped it in the bud in our generation.
Let’s talk balance. Copyright started out as opt-in for 14 years with a possible extension of another 14. A relative few works were copyrighted to begin with, and of those only a small portion extended. Copyright is now opt-out if you can and lasts 70 years plus the life of the author, or 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation in some cases.
There has been only one direction for copyright. Our great great grandparents tried to oblige your ilk with a balance, and since then you and your ilk have done nothing but rob, steal, plunder, and pillage your way to an imbalance in your favor. And then you have the audacity to suggest we’re not being reasonable?
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, I have an idea for balance: You can either choose DRM or copyright. That is, you can have the government grant you a monopoly, or you can try to grant it to yourself. I wonder which one you’d choose.
Re: Re:
You just need to balance your rights, with the desires of “Industry” of stripping you of your rights! A compromise would be to give up your rights willingly, so that the “Industry” would then not try to take them away! Everybody wins!
Re: Re:
There is no use for DRM that can ever grant me rights that have not been available for decades. It can only be used to restrict me, and most of those for things that are perfectly legal – my choice of device, timezone, region, operating system, etc.
Seriously, I’m yet to have someone suggest to me what possible advantage DRM can have for me that a non-DRMed product can not equally have, other than for a 3rd party to exercise control over me.
Why the hell should I respect that?
DRM
DRM, i.e. copy protection is, and always has been, a joke. I remember how easy it was to crack that junk when they put it on floppy disks back in the early 80s. Anyway the real point is that no matter what they come up with, someone will always break it–and the beat goes on. Meanwhile, many get rich on both sides: writing it and breaking it. And we all get the bill.