Cory clarifies that some comments on the Digital Rights Management issues he's been debating include straw-man arguments, so he's made another long post clarifying the debate (setting the straw men ablaze). [Link]
"I noticed last month that Chris A (as befits an ex-Economist writer) is keen to encourage commercial companies to sueeze every last penny of value out of their intellectual property"
This is a straw-man. Neither Chris nor I question Disney, Fox, et al's desire to suck the consumer electronics companies' customers dry with DRM. The argument we're having is over whether it's in the CE companies' best interests to be accomplices to this.
To have a functional market, you need companies and individuals who act in their own best interests. Traditionally, the entertainment companies have wanted fewer devices of less capability in the market -- which is why they strongly opposed the phonogram, radio, jukebox, cable TV, VCR and Internet.
Traditionally, the CE companies have perceived a market opportunity to give their customers more devices and more capable devices, because customers want to get more for less.
This has resulted in a tension that yielded a balance to everyone's benefit. The CE companies built devices that were capable, customers got more freedom, and entertainment companies discovered new opportunities to expand their revenue.
Today, the CE companies are agreeing to participate in secret consortia where a maximum threshold for functionality is being set out by the studios. The CE companies are promised that if they play within the cartel's rules -- i.e., if they don't ship the products their customers want -- then the cartel will sue into oblivion any competitor who enters the market with a more-capable device.
