Non DRM Video, Audio, Books....

Some interesting examples of non-DRM video....

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/04/30/eztakes-5000-strong.html

http://openflix.com/


http://www.archive.org/index.php

Some of these contain more than just video (archive.org especially). Documents, books, audio, etc.

Some of us have a hate on for Mr. Jobs and his DRM. Some of us have a hate on for Mr. Balmer and his DRM. Some of us have a hate on for all of Sony and the DRM. So here are some alternatives, including some odd quirky pieces. I like to support such efforts because they are headed in a direction I think we should be headed, rather than in the direction Corporate Powers think we should be headed.

I'm not a Commie pinko and I do want to see worthy art lead to rewarded artists. But I do object to presumptions of the value of art (it has none just because someone created it or just because someone tries to assign it a value - if nobody is willing to pay that, it does not have that value). I object to assumptions about what I should or should not pay for a priori, sight unseen, and simply because someone else thinks so.

Beyond that, I object to limitations on format transference and personal use. Books must really piss off some of these modern sources of media - they want paid for every view (including multiple views by the same user or views by multiple viewers such as a home presentation of a DVD or loaning a friend a good book). I'm afraid they are not the sole voice in this debate and they don't get to choose the definition our society accepts of the value of media, of art, of fair use and fair dealing, and of just remuneration for artists and for the corporate combines that power distribution.

This is a dialogue our society needs to have. We need to define our boundaries and not let lobbyists and corporations do so. Most of us acknowledge we do want to see reasonable recompense for musicians, movie makers, authors, designers, artists of all forms. There may be some argument as to what just compensation is.

There is no argument that corporate interests have a finanical motive to constrict and restrict our use of various forms of art, trying to repeatedly sell us the same thing, trying to sell us things we cannot share even though such sharing may well lead to greater aggregate exposure and sales for the works.

The dialogue needs to be had and the politicians and legislators need to listen so that whatever protection systems we have in law for intellectual property rights are useful to us as a society and aren't strictly to benefit corporate interests. The government is still voted in by the people and paid for by the citizen's taxes in large part.

So, go take a look at some of the alternatives to paying iTunes, Sony or Microsoft or the MPAA or RIAA a boatload of your money.