Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Defective by Design (enddrm@hostux.social)'s status on Tuesday, 24-Dec-2024 00:45:11 JST Defective by Design

   Help the FSF in its campaign to end DRM in education, whether that be DRM-free music, textbooks, or elsewhere. Invest in a free future by donating to the FSF today and help us reach our goal of collecting $400,000. https://u.fsf.org/1jc #LearnLibre #DRMFree #EndDRM #Education

   • Embed this notice
     Nick (Alatar the Blue) (alatartheblue@hostux.social)'s status on Tuesday, 24-Dec-2024 03:45:34 JST Nick (Alatar the Blue)

     in reply to

     @endDRM if we completely remove DRM, what’s the proposal as a path forward for artists to be able to monetize their work in a way that is scalable for non-tech people? I’m in agreement with not being dumb and the stupidity that is Spotify et al, but the FOSS software world should be a key marker about the burnout of creators in the DRM-free space and just how difficult it is to pay bills while being there. How do we plan to solve for that so that creating can be sustainable and valued?

   • Embed this notice
     Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br) (lxo@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Thursday, 26-Dec-2024 05:43:53 JST Alexandre Oliva (moving to @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br)

     in reply to

     • Nick (Alatar the Blue)
     the first premise of your post that needs to be challenged is the notion that, if a business cannot be successful in an ethical way, that justifies making it unethical and harmful to customers for the benefit of the providers
     
     the second faulty premise is that copyright, whether or not on DRM steroids, can provide authors with a living. that's not even remotely true, except from a few exceptions that prove the general rule https://www.techdirt.com/2024/12/23/copyright-doesnt-provide-a-living-for-a-successful-author/
     
     the analogy with freedom-respecting software that you bring about is great. most of the software developed commercially is written by third parties at request of specific users, and it is typically delivered in ways that the party that hired the development owns and controls the result, having the four freedoms. lots of software businesses thrive this way, even without realizing that they're developing commercial free software
     
     it is the exploitative model of 'software must be available at no charge for anyone to collaborate on', that is not at all mandated by free software, that has created misleading expectations that have carried over to other authorship endeavors
     
     the same model of crowdfunding that has supported several creative projects can be and has been used successfully by artists, and it does not depend on copyright or DRM
     
     writers and musicians have long known that copyrights and DRM don't benefit themselves, but rather the intermediaries who exploit them and their fans. musicians typically earn far more from live performances than from royalties
     
     there are also proposals of tax-funding artists according to their popularity, but not in a direct proportion, because that would only fund a few stars; making it in proportion to a square or cube root of the popularity could accomplish something better
     
     yet another way to fund the arts is some universal basic income, or some other social and economic organization that enables artists and everyone else to work for common good without worrying too much about going broke, hungry or homeless
     
     it doesn't take much creativity to come up with various ways to enable artists to bring us more great art. what gets in the way is the fixation on imposing one particularly harmful way to go about it, that doesn't even accomplish that purpose