A bunch of us caught Michael Franti and Spearhead on Friday night. The band’s multicultural deep grooves, heavily partaking of hiphop and reggae, while also making frequent references to the bedrock roots of blues and jazz, combined with Franti’s activist politics (not to mention several Bass Ales) for a perfect breather from election anxiety. Though I could’ve done with a shorter acoustic solo segment…
Archive for October 31st, 2004
Critics of DRM copy protection schemes chime in
Published October 31, 2004 Technology Leave a CommentFollowing up on my own bad experiences with Apple’s copy protection schemes (I’m no longer going to call these technologies Digital Rights Management, the current IT industry euphemism that can only have been thought up by the same people who brought you Military Intelligence), comes a great rant in the Inquirer by Charlie Demerjian. He hits the nail squarely on the head:
The fundamental question is simply this. Why would a consumer want to buy something that has more restrictions and less functionality for more money than current solutions? I have asked this question to junior members of the companies to the very top CxOs, and from people on the street to fellow journalists. No-one can give me an answer.
The only answer is greed. They don’t give a rat’s ass about you, what you think, care or do, as long as they get your money. If you don’t want to give them your money, they will take it, and make resistance a crime.
Venture capitalist Tim Oren has a more reasoned, but no less conclusive, take on it:
Critics of DRM copy protection schemes chime in
Published October 31, 2004 Technology Leave a CommentFollowing up on my own bad experiences with Apple’s copy protection schemes (I’m no longer going to call these technologies Digital Rights Management, the current IT industry euphemism that can only have been thought up by the same people who brought you Military Intelligence), comes a great rant in the Inquirer by Charlie Demerjian. He hits the nail squarely on the head:
The fundamental question is simply this. Why would a consumer want to buy something that has more restrictions and less functionality for more money than current solutions? I have asked this question to junior members of the companies to the very top CxOs, and from people on the street to fellow journalists. No-one can give me an answer.
The only answer is greed. They don’t give a rat’s ass about you, what you think, care or do, as long as they get your money. If you don’t want to give them your money, they will take it, and make resistance a crime.
Venture capitalist Tim Oren has a more reasoned, but no less conclusive, take on it:
