Fighting for what exactly?
Sometimes, I think it's really easy to lose track of what is at stake in this "Digital Rights" issue. For example, it can sometimes be tricky, even very tricky, to differentiate between what is better for the common good and what is really only better for our own person. In this debate, I think we often lose focus on what the real issue is. For example, why is it so tempting to be a "geek" and to be against all form of digital restrictions? Is it because it's cool? Is it because it's fair? Is it because geeks have no vested interest in the companies that support digital rights?
A few years ago, Divx, the DVD format that had special "features", died. A cause for celebration? I'm not sure. Although I'm pretty sure I must have been happy, if you strickly look at features, Divx was a good thing. Why not have, in addition to all that DVD brought us, some flexibility in terms of time. Why are we willing to go to the movie theater to see a movie, pay 10$ for something that only lasts 2 hours, with no opportunity to pause or restart the movie, yet a medium like Divx did not sound appealing?
I think the answer lies in the word "trust". Let me make an analogy:
When you think about a criminal court case, the standard is to be innocent until proven guilty. The has to be proved beyond resonable doubt. Clearly, it could be the reverse. Why not assume people are guilty and lower the treshold to having resonable doubts that the person is actually guilty?
It works both ways. I think the same issue lies in the digital world. We can assume people will abuse the system and that the system will not be able to defend itself or we can assume that people will respect it and that the system will be resilient enough to deal with the problems. If we think the former, then we want to tip the balance on the other side, and implement things like DRM or software activation. If we think the latter then we think those serve no useful purpose.
Of course, we must not forget the overall picture. Which way does the balance tips? All the limitation tools make the balance tip on the side of those that need leverage to protect their property. Not having those tools tips the balance of the side of those that refuse to give that leverage.
The thing is that once the balance tips, it's very hard to ensure it only tips "so far".
Think of it as tug of war game: there is no way the cord will stay in the middle. The knot (or flag or whatever is in the middle) is going to be on one side. The problem is, once it's on that side, can you really ensure it doesn't go all the way to the "other side". You can't... so you assume it's safer for you to keep the cord on your side, and keep control of what is going on.
And I have to say that's what I am fighting for. I want to not only keep the balance on the side of the people that fear these tools, but I also want to keep the cord near the middle so that both side stay "in the game". I think DRM and similar technology have a place, I think that they can even bring great features (like the ones DIVX) brought, but unfortunately I'm worried that if we let go of the balance we might completely tip the balance in a way that I just can't stand.
I fight for a fair system, one that keeps everyone happy and that slightly tilts on the side of individual rights. I don't want a chaotic world, but I don't want a world that controls me either.
It's give and take, but can we please take a little bit more than we give away?
EFF15
EFF15
A few years ago, Divx, the DVD format that had special "features", died. A cause for celebration? I'm not sure. Although I'm pretty sure I must have been happy, if you strickly look at features, Divx was a good thing. Why not have, in addition to all that DVD brought us, some flexibility in terms of time. Why are we willing to go to the movie theater to see a movie, pay 10$ for something that only lasts 2 hours, with no opportunity to pause or restart the movie, yet a medium like Divx did not sound appealing?
I think the answer lies in the word "trust". Let me make an analogy:
When you think about a criminal court case, the standard is to be innocent until proven guilty. The has to be proved beyond resonable doubt. Clearly, it could be the reverse. Why not assume people are guilty and lower the treshold to having resonable doubts that the person is actually guilty?
It works both ways. I think the same issue lies in the digital world. We can assume people will abuse the system and that the system will not be able to defend itself or we can assume that people will respect it and that the system will be resilient enough to deal with the problems. If we think the former, then we want to tip the balance on the other side, and implement things like DRM or software activation. If we think the latter then we think those serve no useful purpose.
Of course, we must not forget the overall picture. Which way does the balance tips? All the limitation tools make the balance tip on the side of those that need leverage to protect their property. Not having those tools tips the balance of the side of those that refuse to give that leverage.
The thing is that once the balance tips, it's very hard to ensure it only tips "so far".
Think of it as tug of war game: there is no way the cord will stay in the middle. The knot (or flag or whatever is in the middle) is going to be on one side. The problem is, once it's on that side, can you really ensure it doesn't go all the way to the "other side". You can't... so you assume it's safer for you to keep the cord on your side, and keep control of what is going on.
And I have to say that's what I am fighting for. I want to not only keep the balance on the side of the people that fear these tools, but I also want to keep the cord near the middle so that both side stay "in the game". I think DRM and similar technology have a place, I think that they can even bring great features (like the ones DIVX) brought, but unfortunately I'm worried that if we let go of the balance we might completely tip the balance in a way that I just can't stand.
I fight for a fair system, one that keeps everyone happy and that slightly tilts on the side of individual rights. I don't want a chaotic world, but I don't want a world that controls me either.
It's give and take, but can we please take a little bit more than we give away?
EFF15
EFF15
posted by PC @ 9:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home