More on DRM

I'm developing a crisis of confidence (not to mention identity) about this damn blog business. I'm still not sure what I'm writing about, who it's written for, or why I do it apart from the original purpose, which was to learn a bit more about blogging by immersing myself in it. And in that regard I'm no further down the track than I was in July when I started. Or in the other two attempts each year before that when I gave up after three weeks. (OK, I lie. In my second blog I lasted a day. Gah).

Not only that, I'm learning a bit too much about all the crappy things going on in the world and it's really doing my head in. If it wasn't for you three faithful readers, I'd be inclined to chuck it in altogether.

So it's been good, this week, to find some happier takes on the whole digital rights management thang, such as the Rolling Stone article revealing that the Sony debacle goes on (and on, and on...).

Or the Herald Tribune, which is running a New York Times article about video bloggers and includes a snippet about the guy who runs Blogumentary:

"One post there uses video that Mr. Olsen shot without permission during an indie-rock concert at a local club. The result records not only a great performance by the band but also Mr. Olsen's argument with the club's manager, who tried to confiscate his camera. The story evolves into a smart, funny discussion of copyright issues and the philosophical difference between the world-views of the vloggers and traditional media companies. "There's no economic motive," Mr. Olsen says in titles that appear on the screen like a news crawl, noting that the viewer is not being charged for the video. "The point is to capture, and share, fantastic, fleeting moments."

The article infers that you see the argument with bar owner - you don't, but it's a still great piece of video. Called Welcome to the Future, it's worth watching (and, dare I say, downloading...?) though I must warn you to TURN YOUR SPEAKERS DOWN. THEN TURN THEM DOWN AGAIN before pressing "play". (You have been warned. Twice.)

Finally, Jon Udell's Info World column includes the two-way media Web which looks at the difficulting of quoting "a simple remark from a webcast" and moves on to some guarded but optimistic predictions about DRM...

Digital rights management opponents, who like to point out that the R in DRM means restrictions, not rights, suggest that technologies such as Microsoft’s Protected Video Path will soon prevent this kind of copying. It’s tempting to spin out doomsday scenarios but I’m a bit more optimistic. I choose to believe, perhaps naively, that when push comes to shove the Supreme Court will defend fair use. No matter how that struggle turns out, though, we’ll pay a terrible price if we let Hollywood and the tech industry define our rich-media technologies.

I'm still gropeable, and still likely to keep ranting about this for some time yet, but I am also concluding that sooner or later people will vote with their feet, companies will learn the smart way or the hard way, entrepreneurs will take advantage of the huge opportunities in the market being vacated by the fat cats and peace will descend upon the Earth once again.

Or something like that.

Cheers to mjutabor for the great shot of our nearest cousin