It's so much easier for them to just go to the government to settle things because it's far more "coin-operated" than the marketplace. When people have the choice to listen to unprotected and protected content, people want the freedom of the former and that's why DRM is in such a bad position.
King P
· 3 years ago
I sent Ms. Tate an email at the FCC site and explained this same situation to her. I too live in Nashville, and ironically have seen the OTHER side of the coin. Our online music service has over 100 independent artists from all over the world. There are a lot of artists from Nashville on our site, and NONE of them have asked to use DRM on their music.
Interesting that indie artists in Nashville don't want DRM, but the big wig Country Music stars do...but I guess that makes sense. They are trying to protect their millions, as opposed to spreading their art.
binary
· 3 years ago
great, the RIAA have finally gotten their first public office.
OryHara
· 3 years ago
Yes. And look who PUT this lapdog in office. Our favorite dictator. You remember, the one who wants to ban all of your freedoms in the name of 'terrorism', and 'saving the children'. This is why I voted for Ralph Nader.
Hi, do you have a link to a text transcript of what she actually said, or additional corroborating reports from others? I didn't see any obvious source info on quick web searches. Thanks.
jd
Ned Ulbricht
· 3 years ago
What makes Commissioner Tate qualified for her office? She has a B.A. in PolySci and a J.D. Couldn't this administration find someone who at least has a B.A. in Math or something and belongs to the ARRL?
iankf
· 3 years ago
If you don't like her, that's fine. No problem. Let's just spread the blame around appropriately. From the link above, "Deborah Taylor Tate was nominated by President George W. Bush on November 9, 2005, for the remainder of the term expiring June 30, 2007. She was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate on December 21, 2005, and sworn in as FCC Commissioner on January 3, 2006." Nominated and unanimously confirmed...apparently, lapdogs abound.
Ned Ulbricht
· 3 years ago
Oh, Ms. Tate may be likeable... even personable, vivacious, charming... with fantastic hair!
But—and I realize that I'm in a libertarian crowd here—nevertheless, one of the whole points motivating progressive reform in the early 20th century was that elected officials, responsible for the general welfare in an increasingly industrialized society, could not be expected to have the expert background necessary to competently regulate in detail. The concept quits working when the elected professional politicians fill these appointed commissions with more unqualified politicians.
Omnifrog
· 3 years ago
I am really glad to see a fellow Tennessean in this position who is looking to be "a voice for families and consumers. Deborah Taylor Tate says in her Opening Statement before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, United States Senate Confirmation Hearing (http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/tate/dtt121305...>
"As a 6th generation Tennessean, with deep roots in the rural part of our country, I am especially interested in issues that affect rural Americans, and if confirmed, I will work to be a voice for families and consumers on the Commission."
Well here is your chance Tate! I am a Tennessean with a family in a rural community and I am also the founder of International Fair Use Day (www.fairuseday.com). I look forward to working with you to help those familys whose rights are being managed :)
Remember, a managed right is a right lost.
John Dowdell
· 3 years ago
Hi, do you have a link to a text transcript of what she actually said, or additional corroborating reports from others? I didn't see any obvious source info on quick web searches. Thanks.
jd
Christopher
· 3 years ago
I don't understand how ANYONE in their right mind can support DRM. The ONLY thing that it does, is cause headaches and strife for the consumers who are LEGALLY buying movies and music, when they want to play the purchases on stuff that the MPAA and RIAA do not approve of.
There is NO need for protection in the marketplace. Why? Because 99.9% of those who are buying stuff illegally, DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO BUY THE SAME ITEM LEGALLY. So the people who make Adobe Acrobat or ACDSee aren't really losing a sale, because the people downloading stuff illegally wouldn't buy it anyway because legally it is too expensive for their pocketbooks to stretch that far.
Twisted logic, in the minds of some people, but it is logic that makes sense!
Lower the prices, from the $50 or $60 dollars that new games cost now, the $20-30 dollars that new DVD's cost, and the $20 that new CD's cost, and you might make more sales and make more money, because people are willing to buy from you for the peace of mind that "Hey, I ain't getting no viruses with the real thing! That's worth paying 50% of what they used to charge for!"
Kami Watson Huyse
· 3 years ago
Could someone define DRM? For those of us not in the know on this?
Ned Ulbricht
· 3 years ago
Could someone define DRM?
Kami,
DRM is an acronym for "Digital Rights Managment."
It is the irrational belief that a "content producer" can sell someone a secret number without letting the "consumer" know what that number is.
steve
· 3 years ago
let me sum up DRM in 1 word
anything you want to do with you computer it simply wont let you
Christopher
· 3 years ago
Now, that \"anything you want to do with your computer, it simply won\'t let you\" isn\'t exactly right.
There are certain things that it won\'t let you do, like make backup copies of your legally purchased games and music (fair use allowed), listen to music on non-approved devices (not allowed by law), and other things.
Though, some of the restrictions that they are pushing for are REALLY over the top, like a HD-DVD player that won\'t allow a movie to be played, until they see if it is on a master \"blacklist\" somewhere for being copied by pirates.
Brian Rowe
· 3 years ago
Copyright protection shouldn't be hindered by government through some sort of affirmative access requirement (see France). However, copyright protection shouldn't be mandated by government eitherââ?‰?Âhardware companies and content interests must learn to play together with the marketplace, not the Grand Ole FCC, as their venue.
I am very confused by this statement, copyright is nothing more then a state granted Monopoly. Are you advocating for the abolition of copyright or just the removal of state intervention in the technology debate about protecting copyright with technology?
All Comments
Interesting that indie artists in Nashville don't want DRM, but the big wig Country Music stars do...but I guess that makes sense. They are trying to protect their millions, as opposed to spreading their art.
http://www.firethefcc.com/fcc-deborah-tate17110...
jd
What makes Commissioner Tate qualified for her office? She has a B.A. in PolySci and a J.D. Couldn't this administration find someone who at least has a B.A. in Math or something and belongs to the ARRL?
Nominated and unanimously confirmed...apparently, lapdogs abound.
Oh, Ms. Tate may be likeable... even personable, vivacious, charming... with fantastic hair!
But—and I realize that I'm in a libertarian crowd here—nevertheless, one of the whole points motivating progressive reform in the early 20th century was that elected officials, responsible for the general welfare in an increasingly industrialized society, could not be expected to have the expert background necessary to competently regulate in detail. The concept quits working when the elected professional politicians fill these appointed commissions with more unqualified politicians.
Well here is your chance Tate! I am a Tennessean with a family in a rural community and I am also the founder of International Fair Use Day (www.fairuseday.com). I look forward to working with you to help those familys whose rights are being managed :)
Remember, a managed right is a right lost.
jd
There is NO need for protection in the marketplace. Why? Because 99.9% of those who are buying stuff illegally, DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO BUY THE SAME ITEM LEGALLY.
So the people who make Adobe Acrobat or ACDSee aren't really losing a sale, because the people downloading stuff illegally wouldn't buy it anyway because legally it is too expensive for their pocketbooks to stretch that far.
Twisted logic, in the minds of some people, but it is logic that makes sense!
Lower the prices, from the $50 or $60 dollars that new games cost now, the $20-30 dollars that new DVD's cost, and the $20 that new CD's cost, and you might make more sales and make more money, because people are willing to buy from you for the peace of mind that "Hey, I ain't getting no viruses with the real thing! That's worth paying 50% of what they used to charge for!"
Kami,
DRM is an acronym for "Digital Rights Managment."
It is the irrational belief that a "content producer" can sell someone a secret number without letting the "consumer" know what that number is.
anything you want to do with you computer
it simply wont let you
There are certain things that it won\'t let you do, like make backup copies of your legally purchased games and music (fair use allowed), listen to music on non-approved devices (not allowed by law), and other things.
Though, some of the restrictions that they are pushing for are REALLY over the top, like a HD-DVD player that won\'t allow a movie to be played, until they see if it is on a master \"blacklist\" somewhere for being copied by pirates.
I am very confused by this statement, copyright is nothing more then a state granted Monopoly. Are you advocating for the abolition of copyright or just the removal of state intervention in the technology debate about protecting copyright with technology?
Brian Rowe
Freedom for IP