Response to Microsoft DRM Talk

Crypto
I agree with Doctorow on the fact that people are constantly trying to pass secrets from one another. The Internet is a large bush, and we the wrens are constantly squawking. The sound that emits from the bush as a sum of its parts is resounding. A fuzzy mixture of language and inkling. What better place to hide a message than in the interquiteness of the Internet? Based on the present method of encoding and decoding messages, it is true that there will be no "super crypt" by this I means an encryption process where there is a one to one ratio of senders to receivers. Whoever receives the message or file, also receives the tools to decrypt it. Cory Doctorow author of the article "Microsoft DRM talk" proposes a solution in the face of this crypto debuff: Drop all Digital Copywrite Law and put the files in the hands of the masses, a free information exchange. In Docorow's world there would be no encryption, no million-dollar information protection schemes, no copywrite on programs, media, or information, pretty drastic. Although the solution may seem feasible on paper one must realize that in essence the philosophies being exchanged within this discussion are fundamentally communist. Will his ideas of "community copywrite" really fly with the same crowd that builds personal wealth off of singular phrases and logos? The average person yes does want his artwork to be received by the largest audience. The average business, however would much rather se the largest audience pay for a service that is unique to them.
A couple of additional points:
May I bring up one fundamental problem with the article? Nowhere is the Acronym DRM unfoiled. It seems that the author in no way wants to make his philosophy accessible to the average person. The ideal reader of this article would not only have to know what DRM stands for, but also have a comprehensive background in the knowledge of the laws themselves. The header of the article greeting fellow pirates, arrr denotes the intended audience for the article: computer file-swappers. In that case, who is the author trying to convince? Would he not be preaching to the choir in his efforts to attack the mainstream? The article is broken into 5 points. I have five unanswered questions that in their response, a full new article will be necessitated.

1. What does DRM stand for?
In that case:
2. What current laws are in place for Digital rights management, and how do they differ from the present copywrite laws?
3. What role does the government play in the enforcement of Digital Rights Management, how much is this dependant on the regionality of the internet?
4. Describe the role of software and hardware in the transmission of digital files.
5. Who is Cory Doctorow?

Luckily, I was able to infer within the first few paragraphs that DRM stood for digital rights management. On that basis I was reasonably well equipped to stomach the idioms that follow. Upon digestion some more topic-oriented questions surfaced in my psyche, namely: what kind of sick man is Cory Doctorow. Cory is the type of man who would rather streak naked across a stage than put on the production himself. He is an attention seeker to him the internet only provides a larger public forum in which to expose himself as an entity, regardless of the pertinence or intelligence of his message. What Cory does not realize is that the public forum, as viewed by business is a very somber place. Entertainment is one thing, consumption and satisfaction are another. Sure it would be great if all books were free and their consumption was based purely on Internet societal circles. Cyber bookworms munching Alphabet bits for breakfast. But the truth is that the money-market physical economy also serves as a great filter to sift the artist's cheese to the surface. If the Library of congress had no books than there would be no cold storage room within witch the cheese could age properly.

As a creator of art myself I have two concerns: my intended audience and my intended message. Both of these are lost in free distribution. First of all throwing my work out onto the Internet is like throwing War and Peace into the Ape room at the zoo. Sure some people may be able to grasp it, some may have the intended emotional insurgence. But most will not know what to do with it. One might even find a few flossing their teeth with this formidable and realovent line:
"There are always so many conjectures as to the issue of any event that, whatever the outcome, there will always be people to say "I said then that it would be so," quite forgetting that among their innumerable conjectures, many were to take the very opposite effect."

E Busy-Ness

It all began with the credit card. Electronic business is ever changing but it does rely fundamentally on two pre-existing services: the credit card and UPS. As more shipping is done direct (as in supplier to customer Vs. Supplier – retailer – customer) the overall efficiently of shipping goes down. Whereas 1 entire tractor trailer would be use to transport – say a load of therapeutic massage chairs to a local store. Now many chairs are being distributed on different trucks to different locations. Packet switching is not only digital.
The credit card was one of the first purchasing medium that allowed business to be done remotely. Simply find what you need in a catalogue, call a retailer and give them your credit card number. By the late 20th century it can be said that America was generally “plastic crazy” Between 1980 and 1994 credit card purchases went from $170 Billion to $585 Billion. Much of this probably had to do with the internet.
The consumer is already out of touch enough with those who supply them their products. By separating the suppliers from those who demand we have created a generation of children who thinks milk comes from cartons and that all the cloths from china are made by robots. Without the presence of the effects of their consumption people don’t think about it. In America it has been made as easy as possible to consume. It is impossible to exist in our culture without any money. Whereas we once turned to a real person at a store for our purchases we now blankly file our personal information into databases and request forms for “Qty.___”. Psychologically this removed nature is separating us from healthy sociology.
It has almost been accepted that when we shop we are merely performing simple subtraction equations to our bank account. The numbers go down, money is now digital, no money need exist in an electronic economy. Jobs simply become mass conversion centers harnessing human energy and export credit. Schools accredit their students with 2digit codes of excellence. We are transforming the organic human experience into the digital realm.
With our fundamental needs covered, such as food and shelter we simply turn towards desiring more in the form of products. Business in the 21st century is getting the product to the demand as quickly as possible. Popping the bottle in baby’s mouth.

Response To Tim O'Rielly's Article "Piracy is Progressive Taxation"

O'Rielly's main point in his "lessons on piracy" is that the risk of obscurity (in the case of the artist) is far greater than the risk of being overdistibuted through pirated networks. O'Rielly obviously considers our world to be a lot more impersonal than it actually is. Sure many artists gain popularity through the internet and computers, but largely the price that is being paid for over production and consumption of art is that artistic value itself is going down.

The more songs that are downloaded and distributed the less people listen to the actual music further forcing art into the backgrounds of our everyday lives. Peer to Peer networks are not popular because of their ability to cater to music "enthusiasts" but because of their ability to endlessly satisfy the deeper nature of consumerism: Greed.
Whereas once upon a time you actually had to meet the artist to see his work, we now have millions of bloodshot eyes alone on Tuesday nights clicking furiously digging through the digital trash heap of information technology to find battered and severely distorted relics of art. The larger the scale of or consumerism the less personal our contributions are to our suppliers become. The greater availability of products is weakening the value of the products themselves.

What is good art? Whereas in the example of the record label, the question is often answered to us in the form of availability. Relatively good music is made available through the use of promotion and advertisement. The Capitalist system in essence, will not support a would-be artist simply on a whim. In the music industry there are countless industry professionals sifting through the shitty demos of the world, to find the real gems. Now that every recording can be found by the consumer the larger question is why do they choose to consume the ones they do?

This is where our consumerism gives way to mob rule. Just as with the increase in ready-available food our nation as a whole gained weight, with the availability of ready-available music will give way to less good music for all.

In Tim O'Reilly's world his friends are on computers, he sees their text and paints personalities with his mind. He lives in the suburb and removes himself from his vehicle just quickly enough to enter the sanctity of his home-security enforced residency. Bill knows nothing about neighbors or communication. He simply is praising a system that he caters to with his poorly written books which focus on the sensationalism of modern values. The test of time will reveal where the stretch of our artistic prowess lies. I believe we as a nation will be forced to become more nostalgic as our experiences wear thinner and thinner. Replayed on tivo and plastered as wall paper to the backs of or expired VGA displays.

With free distribution the philosophy of value is undermined. Where do the concrete pillars of internet economics reside? The foundation is sand, constantly shifting. And we are lucky there are so many credit card numbers out there floating around to keep it alive. How can anything be appreciated if it does not come at a price?
The more our opinions interchange the lesser of value our opinions actually are. And, in the case of music, the more readily available free music is. The lesser of value the music becomes. As an artist I would much rather have Educated people viewing my work and archiving it than common the folk, who would photo copy it and pin it to their dashboards.