I can’t wait to “consume, mash up and share the content based on rights”! That sounds fun!
As Gruber points out, there are a number of technical impracticalities and impossibilities assumed in this plan. Most significantly, they can ask the music labels how effective DRM is when they assume that the “format protects content everywhere” while still enabling any semblance of RSS and search that anyone will actually use. They could require RSS readers and search engines to include special DRM-enforcing support to access their content, but given that the predominant player in both markets by far is Google, that seems unlikely.
This is all pretty funny, sure… but it’s also a bit sad.
The AP is thinking about this all wrong. It’s the private property mindset where everyone loses. If you set the right incentives and go about it the right way, you’ll only benefit from giving more people access to content. Monetizing content by restricting access worked when newspapers had a monopoly on the distribution channels. Restricting access to content now will only drive people to other channels, devalue your own content, and make consumers angry in the process. Not to mention that “enforcement” in distributed infrastructure like the internet is a complete impossibility. The only they they’re on to here is the universal metadata tagging and indexing. But they don’t even realize that’s the key, which means they’ll fail to execute it correctly. It’s a shame, AP, that it’s 2009 and you can’t even see ten inches in front of your face. Do your content a favor, and stop being such an uptight assclown.
The AP is thinking about this all wrong. It’s...private property mindset where everyone...
nerds for being uppity about certain things,...if nerds weren’t so uppity about DRM,
tracks everything you do with it! note...your grandma. “a platform for[sic] protect,...