Often forgotten, or ignored, the whole quote, part of it often used to express a desire for freedom to access information, from a consumer's point of view "...information wants to be free" is:<p>"On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it's so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other"<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_wants_to_be_free" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_wants_to_be_free</a><p>These two contentious forces need to find an equilibrium so that as consumers we get quality information.
Doctorow echoes, more clearly and vividly than most, Sid Meier's succinct formulation: "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."<p>Because that's what this is ultimately about: whether we want our children to be digital sharecroppers or <i>citizens</i> whose right to read is respected and who can be positively enabled to stand on the shoulders of giants when it comes to access to knowledge.
<a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/10/adobe-spyware-reveals-again-price-drm-your-privacy-and-security" rel="nofollow">https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/10/adobe-spyware-reveals-...</a><p>Don't miss what gets tagged along on drm. Key quote:<p>"Adobe claims that these reports are not quite accurate. According to Adobe, the software only collects information about the book you are currently reading, not your entire library. It also collects information about where you are reading that book, how long you've been reading it, and how much you've read. "<p>Oh and the released that so it sent the information totally unencrypted even if you are completely batshit insane enough to "trust" a company that will be a completely different collection of people in 10 years time with different policies, different corporate ethics etc etc.<p>What you're reading. How long you've been reading it, where you are when you are reading it, what you are up to, which parts you read more than once. Don't miss this part of the DRM debate because any <i>for</i> DRM and against that really needs to be yelling it really, really, really loudly right now or it will be assumed this is what DRM is <i>for.</i>
No great fan of DRM myself, but I don't think the economic case is very strong here.<p>If strong DRM so obviously reduces sales, then are the publishers just ignorant of that? Of course not. It's because DRM is mostly about <i>legal</i> licensing and <i>legal</i> hardware standards, as discussed exhaustively in the OP here [1] and comments.<p>In my most cynical hours, I imagine that behind closed doors, the publishers are looking for ways to encourage piracy because of the boosts to overall enthusiasm that results (ie. free advertising), which is documented in the article.<p>[1]: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7751110" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7751110</a>
Interesting article, but hard to tell where it was going.<p>Turned out to be about how DRM is a bad idea. I'm not sure what the title has to do with the article though....
here is an MP3 link of a talk he gave that summarizes the thesis of this book pretty nicely (26 minutes): <a href="http://dconstruct.s3.amazonaws.com/2014/podcast/dconstruct2014-cory-doctorow.mp3" rel="nofollow">http://dconstruct.s3.amazonaws.com/2014/podcast/dconstruct20...</a>
And then, there is also Jaron Lanier: <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/23/3899518/information-wants-to-be-free-world-world-isnt-ready" rel="nofollow">http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/23/3899518/information-wants-...</a>
As Larry Wall said way back in 1997: "I do not fundamentally believe that information wants to be free. Rather, I believe that information wants to be valuable."