DRM Is Toxic to Culture(meshedinsights.com)
meshedinsights.com
DRM Is Toxic to Culture
https://meshedinsights.com/2017/07/09/drm-is-toxic-to-culture/
262 comments
DRM and advertising tech have a similar problem of bad execution. Sure, there exists a way to do each of these that many may consider "reasonable" but in practice industries have shown that they would rather be obnoxious and make everything annoying or just much more difficult than necessary. This means they can't be trusted to do it well, and the solution must be to avoid it completely (DRM-free content and ad blocker).
I don't get this - why is DRM is friggning' NECESSARY? What makes it this forced law of nature?
The current multi-billion media conglomerates grew at times when being able to copy a piece of content from TV was encoded in the LAW. Content providers earned billions of dollars at times when you could press REC on your VCR and ("THE HORROR" now every content provider shill screams) rewatch the show many times and (GASP) give the tape to your friends to watch too!
What exactly was so horrible at being able to rewatch, store and borrow a movie to a friend that now seems to completely incomprehensible to people here on HN and outside? What kind of irreversible damage is done by existence of torrents when WB, Netflix and other content providers earn record profits?
Why are we even debating DRM as something that has a right to exist and helps anyone?
EDIT: Ergh, sorry for the tone, by DRM is something that really touches my nerves a bit.
The current multi-billion media conglomerates grew at times when being able to copy a piece of content from TV was encoded in the LAW. Content providers earned billions of dollars at times when you could press REC on your VCR and ("THE HORROR" now every content provider shill screams) rewatch the show many times and (GASP) give the tape to your friends to watch too!
What exactly was so horrible at being able to rewatch, store and borrow a movie to a friend that now seems to completely incomprehensible to people here on HN and outside? What kind of irreversible damage is done by existence of torrents when WB, Netflix and other content providers earn record profits?
Why are we even debating DRM as something that has a right to exist and helps anyone?
EDIT: Ergh, sorry for the tone, by DRM is something that really touches my nerves a bit.
> The current multi-billion media conglomerates grew at times when being able to copy a piece of content from TV was encoded in the LAW. Content providers earned billions of dollars at times when you could press REC on your VCR and ("THE HORROR" now every content provider shill screams) rewatch the show many times and (GASP) give the tape to your friends to watch too!
TV and Movie industry spent considerable effort tackling exactly that type of home taping. You might want to have a look at Disney, who wanted to have "single use" video tapes that would need to be sent back to a factory to be rewound, or special DVDs that were sent in sealed packs and would oxidise to uselessness within 24 hours of being opened.
TV and Movie industry spent considerable effort tackling exactly that type of home taping. You might want to have a look at Disney, who wanted to have "single use" video tapes that would need to be sent back to a factory to be rewound, or special DVDs that were sent in sealed packs and would oxidise to uselessness within 24 hours of being opened.
They did, they failed and they still earned billions at that time. Why are we entertaining their sociopathic ideas now?
It's not that they're trying to stop mass distribution, they're trying to prevent you from rewatching content later (shows regularly disappear from Netflix and similar services), prevent you from showing them or sharing to their friends (does any service let you share a show from an ipad to another ipad?) or even let you watch anything when you're offline (how many services let you download their full catalog for later watching?).
It's not that they're trying to stop mass distribution, they're trying to prevent you from rewatching content later (shows regularly disappear from Netflix and similar services), prevent you from showing them or sharing to their friends (does any service let you share a show from an ipad to another ipad?) or even let you watch anything when you're offline (how many services let you download their full catalog for later watching?).
Well, to be fair, the VCR didn't have a distribution system attached that allows sharing worldwide.
I still agree with you, though; times change, and nobody "deserves" business-model protection. The legacy copyright industries already get massive state subsidies through the legal enforcement of artificial monopolies - degrading everyone's computing to prop them up further is insane.
I still agree with you, though; times change, and nobody "deserves" business-model protection. The legacy copyright industries already get massive state subsidies through the legal enforcement of artificial monopolies - degrading everyone's computing to prop them up further is insane.
>I still agree with you, though; times change, and nobody "deserves" business-model protection.
Is that true though?
Because laws against theft (physical theft of actual products I mean, let's not get into whether "copying" is theft here) are a business-model protection too.
As are most business laws (e.g. contract law).
Why pay at a restaurant when you can just walk out and run for it? Isn't making it illegal a "business model protection"?
So what makes some business models (selling physical stuff) more protectable?
Is that true though?
Because laws against theft (physical theft of actual products I mean, let's not get into whether "copying" is theft here) are a business-model protection too.
As are most business laws (e.g. contract law).
Why pay at a restaurant when you can just walk out and run for it? Isn't making it illegal a "business model protection"?
So what makes some business models (selling physical stuff) more protectable?
You're making false comparison here. DRM is extremely invasive - it's akin to being forced to wear handcuffs inside a store to prevent theft, or perhaps being strip searched every time you walk past a store. Both of those actions can also be sold as "business protection against theft", but our legal framework currently says that we're ready to tolerate some amount of shoplifting and we're not going to allow stores to strip people naked at the exit to check for stolen goods. The profit fallout of shoplifting is just too small to allow for such egregious attacks on legitimate customers.
Same story with DRM - yes, piracy IS illegal. But DRM as a response is hugely disproportionate to damage done, causes huge issues to LEGITIMATE buyers. What DRM proponents defend is attacking paying customers with restrictions, lockdowns and costs to hunt a rather small profit loss (the relative smallness of lost sales due to piracy have been repeatedly demonstrated in these last years).
Same story with DRM - yes, piracy IS illegal. But DRM as a response is hugely disproportionate to damage done, causes huge issues to LEGITIMATE buyers. What DRM proponents defend is attacking paying customers with restrictions, lockdowns and costs to hunt a rather small profit loss (the relative smallness of lost sales due to piracy have been repeatedly demonstrated in these last years).
At least for the US, I think you are overestimating the restrictions on private establishments.
Stores don't do invasive things because it doesn't make business sense, not because the legal system particularly enjoins them.
Like if I opened a candy shop that required agreeing to an NDA for entry, what law do you think would make me let people in without signing the NDA? It might not be enforced, but there isn't anything that would stop me from requiring the signature for entry (other than it being silly).
Stores don't do invasive things because it doesn't make business sense, not because the legal system particularly enjoins them.
Like if I opened a candy shop that required agreeing to an NDA for entry, what law do you think would make me let people in without signing the NDA? It might not be enforced, but there isn't anything that would stop me from requiring the signature for entry (other than it being silly).
It was just an analogy to make it easier to demonstrate the disproportionate effect DRM has on paying customers.
I don't particularly care about entering into a debate about what kind of abuse of people US laws allows.
I don't particularly care about entering into a debate about what kind of abuse of people US laws allows.
Fair enough.
The disproportionate effect DRM has on paying customers doesn't seem to be obscure or difficult to think about though.
The disproportionate effect DRM has on paying customers doesn't seem to be obscure or difficult to think about though.
Showing that contract up front I would guess your customers would leave.
Many movie pirates aren't aware of the laws (eg. kids)
Many movie pirates aren't aware of the laws (eg. kids)
[deleted]
The risk to a shoplifter is unfathomably larger than the risk to a pirate, and the leakage is infinitely less.
Analogies generally don't serve this debate well. Saying DRM is like physically invasive security to your person is just as ridiculous as Studios' claims that piracy is the same as theft. Both attempt to communicate real issues, but are ridiculously inaccurate.
Analogies generally don't serve this debate well. Saying DRM is like physically invasive security to your person is just as ridiculous as Studios' claims that piracy is the same as theft. Both attempt to communicate real issues, but are ridiculously inaccurate.
> So what makes some business models (selling physical stuff) more protectable?
Food is a scarce[1] resource. Concepts like "property" and "theft" relate specifically to managing scarcity. Taking food deprives the owner of their meal, because we cannot make perfect copies of baryonic matter. After Shannon introduced the idea of "digital communication" that allowed information to be copied indefinitely without errors, the bit was no longer scarce.
Note: I didn't say anything about how the information was created in the first place. The creation of data - which requires work/energy - should not be conflated with copying existing data. The method used by the restaurant to create or acquire a recipe doesn't create the scarcity that is inherent to the food that implements that recipe.
Food is a scarce[1] resource. Concepts like "property" and "theft" relate specifically to managing scarcity. Taking food deprives the owner of their meal, because we cannot make perfect copies of baryonic matter. After Shannon introduced the idea of "digital communication" that allowed information to be copied indefinitely without errors, the bit was no longer scarce.
Note: I didn't say anything about how the information was created in the first place. The creation of data - which requires work/energy - should not be conflated with copying existing data. The method used by the restaurant to create or acquire a recipe doesn't create the scarcity that is inherent to the food that implements that recipe.
Laws against theft, contract enforcement, etc. are general laws for the benefit of everyone. (They also derive from common law, which dates back over a thousand years, as opposed to statutory laws that are routinely bought by lobbying, but let's put that aside.) They are a sort of 'legal primitive' - don't cheat, don't steal - that attempt to provide a baseline of trust in society.
Mandates that computers must respect special rules based on legal definitions are laws that tell me how my machines must operate and how you must build machines. They are arbitrary restrictions the degrade capabilities (make the machines less valuable) solely for the purpose of enabling a few industries to be lazy and not figure out how to be relevant in a changing world.
If you want to go down that path, you're going to be "picking winners and losers" - something I hear we are supposed to dislike. Which business models "deserve" protections?
- Do long-haul truckers "deserve" to keep working in the face of self-driving trucks?
- Do corner groceries "deserve" protection from Whole Foods/Amazon or Walmart's logistics innovations?
> So what makes some business models [...] more protectable?
As a descriptive matter, it appears that that's closely related to one's investment in lobbying.
Mandates that computers must respect special rules based on legal definitions are laws that tell me how my machines must operate and how you must build machines. They are arbitrary restrictions the degrade capabilities (make the machines less valuable) solely for the purpose of enabling a few industries to be lazy and not figure out how to be relevant in a changing world.
If you want to go down that path, you're going to be "picking winners and losers" - something I hear we are supposed to dislike. Which business models "deserve" protections?
- Do long-haul truckers "deserve" to keep working in the face of self-driving trucks?
- Do corner groceries "deserve" protection from Whole Foods/Amazon or Walmart's logistics innovations?
> So what makes some business models [...] more protectable?
As a descriptive matter, it appears that that's closely related to one's investment in lobbying.
>If you want to go down that path, you're going to be "picking winners and losers" - something I hear we are supposed to dislike. Which business models "deserve" protections?
I'd say that should not be up to the availability of the relevant technology to decide, but up to society.
Just because we can obliterate or replace something doesn't automatically mean we should, or that it would be better for us if we did.
So I'm perfectly OK with society picking winners and losers, and not OK with a jungle race where "invisible hands" and market forces (including the one's people forget, like lobbies, monopolies and under the table deals) decide.
I'd say that should not be up to the availability of the relevant technology to decide, but up to society.
Just because we can obliterate or replace something doesn't automatically mean we should, or that it would be better for us if we did.
So I'm perfectly OK with society picking winners and losers, and not OK with a jungle race where "invisible hands" and market forces (including the one's people forget, like lobbies, monopolies and under the table deals) decide.
> So I'm perfectly OK with society picking winners and losers, and not OK with a jungle race where "invisible hands" and market forces (including the one's people forget, like lobbies, monopolies and under the table deals) decide.
Uh, I specifically called out lobbies and monopolies.
And in theory I agree with you. In practice, "society" doesn't serve that role. The "invisible hands" are exactly the actors doing the picking.
Don't get me wrong - I love me some theory, it is so much cleaner than the real world. But we don't get to live there.
Uh, I specifically called out lobbies and monopolies.
And in theory I agree with you. In practice, "society" doesn't serve that role. The "invisible hands" are exactly the actors doing the picking.
Don't get me wrong - I love me some theory, it is so much cleaner than the real world. But we don't get to live there.
>Don't get me wrong - I love me some theory, it is so much cleaner than the real world. But we don't get to live there.
Is that because it's impossible and unpractical, or because we are conditioned for the current situation?
Is that because it's impossible and unpractical, or because we are conditioned for the current situation?
Business model protection is if some particular model gets legal privileges that give it an advantage over competing business models without a justification based on the common good. So, none of the examples that you cite are cases of business model protection.
Just because a business model (e.g. retail sales) is so prevalent as to be invisible as such, and laws that enable it seem like natural laws or obvious for the common good, doesn't mean it's not a business model like any other. Just that some are unable to see it as such.
There has been criticism of the prevalent model too (e.g. from the "property is theft" type to money-less sharing communities etc).
There has been criticism of the prevalent model too (e.g. from the "property is theft" type to money-less sharing communities etc).
Contract laws and laws forbidding theft (and establishing the private ownership of physical objects) are literally cornerstones of almost all human societies that ever existed. Protecting retail is incidental.
Consider this thought experiment: we invented Star Trek replicators and made them as expensive as computers or microwave ovens. Retail business would, and IMO rightfully should, literally stop existing that very moment. Trying to restrict replicating everyday object would be wrong, and would go against the very nature of replicator-enabled reality.
This is to show that laws should align with the reality they exist in, instead of making lives of the many worse to make lives of the few a bit easier.
Consider this thought experiment: we invented Star Trek replicators and made them as expensive as computers or microwave ovens. Retail business would, and IMO rightfully should, literally stop existing that very moment. Trying to restrict replicating everyday object would be wrong, and would go against the very nature of replicator-enabled reality.
This is to show that laws should align with the reality they exist in, instead of making lives of the many worse to make lives of the few a bit easier.
>Consider this thought experiment: we invented Star Trek replicators and made them as expensive as computers or microwave ovens. Retail business would, and IMO rightfully should, literally stop existing that very moment. Trying to restrict replicating everyday object would be wrong, and would go against the very nature of replicator-enabled reality.
I don't see why it would be inherently "wrong". Wrong is for humans to decide.
Consider this alternate though experiment: we invented a device giving people the ability to murder anyone in the world without anybody having proof of who did it. Would it be wrong trying to restrict that machine's sales and use, and would it go against the very nature of killing-without-evidence-machine-enabled reality?
I don't see why it would be inherently "wrong". Wrong is for humans to decide.
Consider this alternate though experiment: we invented a device giving people the ability to murder anyone in the world without anybody having proof of who did it. Would it be wrong trying to restrict that machine's sales and use, and would it go against the very nature of killing-without-evidence-machine-enabled reality?
Wrong is always for humans to decide.
In your example, it wouldn't be wrong, because this machine enables severe violation of one of the fundamental things people agree on - the wish of individuals to live, and live without fear of getting killed. On one level up, for humans as social animals, there are pretty universal concepts of fairness, that seem to include personal property rights (communism tried to do away with that, and it created a disaster) and the desire for reward for one's work. Societies tend to enshrine those desires in laws. We also have desires for sharing and social expectations that it's good for people with surplus to share with people who have less than they need. Moreover, the concept of helping those in need is also pretty fundamental as humans go.
I bring it up because your example with murder-machine deals with a different set of concepts than the replication machine.
The replicator example was meant to show that retail business model doesn't make sense when there's zero marginal cost of producing and distributing a good past the very first item - retail stops bringing any value to customers. Trying to artificially limit replicators to save retail would be wrong, both by going against the fundamental concepts of society and by making something trivial and good much more difficult to perform.
By the same line of thinking, it's worth considering whether DRM and IP laws aren't protecting some business models that don't make sense anymore, and by this causing damage to society.
In your example, it wouldn't be wrong, because this machine enables severe violation of one of the fundamental things people agree on - the wish of individuals to live, and live without fear of getting killed. On one level up, for humans as social animals, there are pretty universal concepts of fairness, that seem to include personal property rights (communism tried to do away with that, and it created a disaster) and the desire for reward for one's work. Societies tend to enshrine those desires in laws. We also have desires for sharing and social expectations that it's good for people with surplus to share with people who have less than they need. Moreover, the concept of helping those in need is also pretty fundamental as humans go.
I bring it up because your example with murder-machine deals with a different set of concepts than the replication machine.
The replicator example was meant to show that retail business model doesn't make sense when there's zero marginal cost of producing and distributing a good past the very first item - retail stops bringing any value to customers. Trying to artificially limit replicators to save retail would be wrong, both by going against the fundamental concepts of society and by making something trivial and good much more difficult to perform.
By the same line of thinking, it's worth considering whether DRM and IP laws aren't protecting some business models that don't make sense anymore, and by this causing damage to society.
> I don't see why it would be inherently "wrong".
Because it prevents people from creating wealth for themselves in order to make sure that other people can profit from selling to them, thus creating a privilege that hurts the common good. Aka "protection of a business model".
> Wrong is for humans to decide.
So ... you are not human?
Because it prevents people from creating wealth for themselves in order to make sure that other people can profit from selling to them, thus creating a privilege that hurts the common good. Aka "protection of a business model".
> Wrong is for humans to decide.
So ... you are not human?
That does not make it business model protection. Please try to actually understand what people write, it doesn't help discussions if you simply ignore the other's point.
True, but they still kept earning billions through peak global torrents distribution and Netflix happily made people pay for them because they were accessible. And now they run after the DRM train like everyone else.
>True, but they still kept earning billions through peak global torrents distribution
Isn't that kind of irrelevant though?
Whether a business still makes money is not an argument as to whether torrenting their stuff would be OK.
A physical business (e.g. clothes store) might make millions even though people steal stuff, but we wouldn't consider that as making stealing OK.
(And I don't care for the "copying is not stealing" argument. It might or it might not be, but I'm making an analogy here, and the core of it is: whether a business is still coming out on top, making money, etc, doesn't mean another practice against them is OK).
Isn't that kind of irrelevant though?
Whether a business still makes money is not an argument as to whether torrenting their stuff would be OK.
A physical business (e.g. clothes store) might make millions even though people steal stuff, but we wouldn't consider that as making stealing OK.
(And I don't care for the "copying is not stealing" argument. It might or it might not be, but I'm making an analogy here, and the core of it is: whether a business is still coming out on top, making money, etc, doesn't mean another practice against them is OK).
It's extremely relevant when we're debating how far we're letting companies go at restricting your freedoms and where do we curb them.
A similar example: warranties. In EU at least, we demand that companies invest money to make their hardware work at least 24 months without issues. Even though this costs corporations money and they'd probably prefer your TV to die in 24 hours because that would increase their revenue flow. It benefits the society at large and makes life better for everyone at the expense of some cash flow of businesses.
I see DRM as the same kind of issue - it actively ruins cultural experience of society at large, forces locked down devices on people, demands that culture must not be experienced repeatedly and forces people to become renters of content. I'd prefer businesses to lose some profits due to piracy instead of having to tolerate all the horse shit DRM pushes on us. And my talk about profits is all about that - even though piracy exists, businesses still can generate huge profits. As such I argue that thus DRM isn't necessary at all considering all horrible consequences it brings.
A similar example: warranties. In EU at least, we demand that companies invest money to make their hardware work at least 24 months without issues. Even though this costs corporations money and they'd probably prefer your TV to die in 24 hours because that would increase their revenue flow. It benefits the society at large and makes life better for everyone at the expense of some cash flow of businesses.
I see DRM as the same kind of issue - it actively ruins cultural experience of society at large, forces locked down devices on people, demands that culture must not be experienced repeatedly and forces people to become renters of content. I'd prefer businesses to lose some profits due to piracy instead of having to tolerate all the horse shit DRM pushes on us. And my talk about profits is all about that - even though piracy exists, businesses still can generate huge profits. As such I argue that thus DRM isn't necessary at all considering all horrible consequences it brings.
> Whether a business still makes money is not an argument as to whether torrenting their stuff would be OK.
But it should be in whether or not we spend lots of resources in helping them to increase their profits further.
> A physical business (e.g. clothes store) might make millions even though people steal stuff, but we wouldn't consider that as making stealing OK.
But at the same time we also don't attempt to prevent all theft, right? I mean, we absolutely could take tax money and have police officers strip you naked whenever you leave some store to make sure that thefts don't happen. We don't. Why not?
But it should be in whether or not we spend lots of resources in helping them to increase their profits further.
> A physical business (e.g. clothes store) might make millions even though people steal stuff, but we wouldn't consider that as making stealing OK.
But at the same time we also don't attempt to prevent all theft, right? I mean, we absolutely could take tax money and have police officers strip you naked whenever you leave some store to make sure that thefts don't happen. We don't. Why not?
Playing devil's advocate, is a lot of tax money spent on protecting copyright? Aren't most infringers "caught" by private companies hired by the industry, who then send DMCA takedowns, letters to ISPs and file civil lawsuit?
Tax money is not the only way that society spends resources on enforcing rules.
Those DMCA takedowns, for example, need to be processed by hosting platforms and ISPs, so they have to pay people for doing so, and that's then necessarily part of the price that you pay for ISP service, or that, I dunno, youtube video makers get less revenue from their videos.
Just because the state doesn't spend tax money on it, doesn't mean it doesn't consume public resources.
And much more insidious are the opportunity costs, because they are more or less invisible: For example, the DMCA makes it a criminal offense to circumvent any technology that was intended to "protect copyright" or something to that effect. Now, there might be the opportunity for who knows what kind of technical innovation if that wasn't illegal. People could possibly build all kinds of nifty devices that allow you to use media in new ways or circumstances that would be perfectly legal as far as copyright is concerned--but people don't because that would be criminal. How much value for society is thus not created as a side effect of this ban? That value is also part of what we spend on enforcing copyright.
Or how about security holes in DRM software? As it's illegal to reverse-engineer DRM software, security researchers don't touch DRM software. But essentially all software that security researchers have ever looked at does have vulnerabilities. So, who knows how many people have been hacked via vulnerabilities in DRM software? How many people's data was stolen that way? Maybe people were the victim of identity theft due to vulnerabilities in DRM software? All of that also would be part of the resources that we spend on this.
Or what about when John Deere holds the data hostage that the tractors that they supposedly sold to farmers collects? And people aren't even allowed to swap out the tractor's software for their own due to DRM and the above criminalization of circumventing it?
You have to consider all the negative consequences that the existence of those rules has, because that all comes out of our collective wealth in order to prop up their business model.
Those DMCA takedowns, for example, need to be processed by hosting platforms and ISPs, so they have to pay people for doing so, and that's then necessarily part of the price that you pay for ISP service, or that, I dunno, youtube video makers get less revenue from their videos.
Just because the state doesn't spend tax money on it, doesn't mean it doesn't consume public resources.
And much more insidious are the opportunity costs, because they are more or less invisible: For example, the DMCA makes it a criminal offense to circumvent any technology that was intended to "protect copyright" or something to that effect. Now, there might be the opportunity for who knows what kind of technical innovation if that wasn't illegal. People could possibly build all kinds of nifty devices that allow you to use media in new ways or circumstances that would be perfectly legal as far as copyright is concerned--but people don't because that would be criminal. How much value for society is thus not created as a side effect of this ban? That value is also part of what we spend on enforcing copyright.
Or how about security holes in DRM software? As it's illegal to reverse-engineer DRM software, security researchers don't touch DRM software. But essentially all software that security researchers have ever looked at does have vulnerabilities. So, who knows how many people have been hacked via vulnerabilities in DRM software? How many people's data was stolen that way? Maybe people were the victim of identity theft due to vulnerabilities in DRM software? All of that also would be part of the resources that we spend on this.
Or what about when John Deere holds the data hostage that the tractors that they supposedly sold to farmers collects? And people aren't even allowed to swap out the tractor's software for their own due to DRM and the above criminalization of circumventing it?
You have to consider all the negative consequences that the existence of those rules has, because that all comes out of our collective wealth in order to prop up their business model.
Good answer, thanks.
press REC on your VCR and… make a worse copy of the already pretty bad copy you received over the air. Subsequent generation copies would be really bad. Sharing your copy with a friend involved physically transferring it and possibly not getting it back.
It really isn't comparable to a directly copyable digital form.
If you like the 1970s way, prop your phone up on a table and use the camera to record a movie off of Netflix. You will have a much better result than we did with VHS tape in the 1970s. You can probably find a filter to crap up the video to look like VHS.
It really isn't comparable to a directly copyable digital form.
If you like the 1970s way, prop your phone up on a table and use the camera to record a movie off of Netflix. You will have a much better result than we did with VHS tape in the 1970s. You can probably find a filter to crap up the video to look like VHS.
VCR's where generally better recordings than the 'cam' footage of the latest blockbuster leaked on the internet. People sometimes are watching films before the special effects are done.
The core issue is if a company can make 501 million instead of 500 million they have zero incentives to make less money. Which is why cable companies scrimp on backhaul even when it's a rounding error on their costs. And why companies are so focused on DRM etc.
The core issue is if a company can make 501 million instead of 500 million they have zero incentives to make less money. Which is why cable companies scrimp on backhaul even when it's a rounding error on their costs. And why companies are so focused on DRM etc.
You can say that, but I don't think the price levels of current media (particularly digital media) are set to maximize profit. I think they're set to embed an idea of high value, and I'm uncertain of the purpose. It could be for legal reasons, prestige, accounting, I'm not sure.
I recently got an Amazon Fire stick, attached to a projector, after many years without any kind of television. Naturally, a projector hitting a 100+ inch screen magnifies any flaws in compression or image quality, so you want to play back good quality media. Amazon generally serves up just about acceptable image quality (I'd say they're about 1 standard deviation worse than Netflix in encode quality), but the prices are just ridiculously high - they're about 10 times more than I'd be willing to pay. As a result, I don't watch anything that isn't available via Netflix or Prime, and haven't bought or rented any other content. I'd spend low thousands GBP on media - I have in other form factors - but not if it nets me only 200 hours or so of content. The prices are just ridiculously high.
I recently got an Amazon Fire stick, attached to a projector, after many years without any kind of television. Naturally, a projector hitting a 100+ inch screen magnifies any flaws in compression or image quality, so you want to play back good quality media. Amazon generally serves up just about acceptable image quality (I'd say they're about 1 standard deviation worse than Netflix in encode quality), but the prices are just ridiculously high - they're about 10 times more than I'd be willing to pay. As a result, I don't watch anything that isn't available via Netflix or Prime, and haven't bought or rented any other content. I'd spend low thousands GBP on media - I have in other form factors - but not if it nets me only 200 hours or so of content. The prices are just ridiculously high.
IMO, this is mostly around the pain of spending money not the actual cost of content.
Cable runs around 1k/year or more and has advertising, which used to be a fairly normal thing upper middle class people bought. Split that into into individual purchases and your likely spending far less. You just happen to notice that your spending money where subscriptions are a background thing.
Also, don't forget Netflix DVD is still an option.
Cable runs around 1k/year or more and has advertising, which used to be a fairly normal thing upper middle class people bought. Split that into into individual purchases and your likely spending far less. You just happen to notice that your spending money where subscriptions are a background thing.
Also, don't forget Netflix DVD is still an option.
I'm not in the US. The idea of paying 100 GBP per month for cable is alien to me, never mind 200. It's just not worth that much.
Physical media is considerably less expensive than digital media, and has a secondary market. I wouldn't bother with renting physical media ever again.
Imo there's a price corrective missing for digital media.
Physical media is considerably less expensive than digital media, and has a secondary market. I wouldn't bother with renting physical media ever again.
Imo there's a price corrective missing for digital media.
Do you really spend $1k/year just for TV, or does that include internet? Because if the later, it's not really comparable.
Just TV. Bundle savings vs just internet = basic package + DVR + Movie channels + fees & taxes. Actual bill over 120/mo.
1k/y or 83$/month is on the low side for just TV. A 200$ a month cable bill was actually fairly common a few years ago once you have multiple DVR's and premium channels etc.
Note this is really deceptive and even then it quickly hit's over 83$/month before getting HBO, or equipment, or fees, or taxes. https://www.verizon.com/home/fiostv/
1k/y or 83$/month is on the low side for just TV. A 200$ a month cable bill was actually fairly common a few years ago once you have multiple DVR's and premium channels etc.
Note this is really deceptive and even then it quickly hit's over 83$/month before getting HBO, or equipment, or fees, or taxes. https://www.verizon.com/home/fiostv/
But that "worse quality" was still, for many people, "good enough"
Aside from that, I think you're arguing that it's a matter of scale, parent argues that it's the same thing.
A similar, modern example might be a slow, error prone cellular connection where a user copies 1 movie a day to their friends at tremendous cost to their cell bill.
Aside from that, I think you're arguing that it's a matter of scale, parent argues that it's the same thing.
A similar, modern example might be a slow, error prone cellular connection where a user copies 1 movie a day to their friends at tremendous cost to their cell bill.
> What exactly was so horrible at being able to rewatch, store and borrow a movie to a friend that now seems to completely incomprehensible to people here on HN and outside?
You're forgetting that VCRs and other analog tape-based media had generational losses; every copy made degraded the quality noticeably and put wear on the tape which, from the studios' perspective, kept copying under control. That isn't so for digital recordings.
Beyond that, one can't be against DRM and for GPL enforcement at the same time and remain logically consistent. Both hinge on the owners being able to enforce certain rights granted by law on intellectual property. (Note that I'm not defending DRM here, just pointing out the facts.)
You're forgetting that VCRs and other analog tape-based media had generational losses; every copy made degraded the quality noticeably and put wear on the tape which, from the studios' perspective, kept copying under control. That isn't so for digital recordings.
Beyond that, one can't be against DRM and for GPL enforcement at the same time and remain logically consistent. Both hinge on the owners being able to enforce certain rights granted by law on intellectual property. (Note that I'm not defending DRM here, just pointing out the facts.)
> Beyond that, one can't be against DRM and for GPL enforcement at the same time and remain logically consistent.
One can absolutely do that. Technical restraints and legal remedies are not the same thing, and it's completely consistent to say that DRM should be unavailable to both proprietary and free works while legal remedies should be available to both.
One can absolutely do that. Technical restraints and legal remedies are not the same thing, and it's completely consistent to say that DRM should be unavailable to both proprietary and free works while legal remedies should be available to both.
> Technical restraints and legal remedies are not the same thing, and it's completely consistent to say that DRM should be unavailable to both proprietary and free works while legal remedies should be available to both.
"legal remedies should be available to both" was tried for media; that was the era where the studios were suing individuals for copyright violations. Needless to say, that proved to be impractical for a variety of reasons.
Unless your intent is to draft laws that specifically don't work for causes you don't like and works only for causes you do, i.e. negotiating in bad faith, you're going to have to admit that the existence of IP rights implies that that other IP rightsholders are permitted to build some mechanism that works to enforce their rights.
And, again, note I'm not defending DRM. I find it just as annoying and inconvenient as everyone else.
"legal remedies should be available to both" was tried for media; that was the era where the studios were suing individuals for copyright violations. Needless to say, that proved to be impractical for a variety of reasons.
Unless your intent is to draft laws that specifically don't work for causes you don't like and works only for causes you do, i.e. negotiating in bad faith, you're going to have to admit that the existence of IP rights implies that that other IP rightsholders are permitted to build some mechanism that works to enforce their rights.
And, again, note I'm not defending DRM. I find it just as annoying and inconvenient as everyone else.
Your argument only works if technical restraints are (a) necessary and (b) effective. If they’re not necessary, i.e. rightsholders can profit without needing to “enforce their rights” either legally or technically, then the limited effectiveness of lawsuits against individuals is not the end of the world. (This doesn’t contradict a belief that legal relief should be available in principle, and in any case, it is available in practice against large-scale or commercial operations.) On the other hand, if technical restraints aren’t effective, then rightsholders gain little by imposing them, and lose little by removing them. Thus, even under the assumption that piracy is a huge cost and can’t be solved without technical restraints, it wouldn’t be inconsistent to advocate banning them, because piracy couldn’t be solved with them either!
In fact, there’s a good argument that DRM is neither necessary nor effective: the former as demonstrated by the music industry, the latter as demonstrated by the movie industry (where the availability of new releases on torrent sites is a matter of course, as it has been for many years). True, it’s more complicated than that, as both technical and market factors greatly affect the utility of DRM in any specific situation. But as a general principle…
In fact, there’s a good argument that DRM is neither necessary nor effective: the former as demonstrated by the music industry, the latter as demonstrated by the movie industry (where the availability of new releases on torrent sites is a matter of course, as it has been for many years). True, it’s more complicated than that, as both technical and market factors greatly affect the utility of DRM in any specific situation. But as a general principle…
First of all, you're moving the goalposts from a policy position being logically consistent to policy being practically equivalent.
Anyway, in practical terms, GPL and BSD license terms are violated all the time, and only a handful of the most egregious examples ever see a courtroom. I don't see how that's categorically different from the situation of works with other licenses.
Anyway, in practical terms, GPL and BSD license terms are violated all the time, and only a handful of the most egregious examples ever see a courtroom. I don't see how that's categorically different from the situation of works with other licenses.
> you're going to have to admit that the existence of IP rights implies that that other IP rightsholders are permitted to build some mechanism that works to enforce their rights.
Yes. And not one bit more. Show me a DRM system that would never overstep the legal boundaries of their legally enforcable rights, and your argument maybe makes some sense.
Yes. And not one bit more. Show me a DRM system that would never overstep the legal boundaries of their legally enforcable rights, and your argument maybe makes some sense.
> Beyond that, one can't be against DRM and for GPL enforcement at the same time
So, one can only be for the enforcement of laws against homicide if one is in favor of capital punishment? Is that roughly the point that you are making?
So, one can only be for the enforcement of laws against homicide if one is in favor of capital punishment? Is that roughly the point that you are making?
>The current multi-billion media conglomerates grew at times when being able to copy a piece of content from TV was encoded in the LAW. Content providers earned billions of dollars at times when you could press REC on your VCR and ("THE HORROR" now every content provider shill screams) rewatch the show many times and (GASP) give the tape to your friends to watch too!
Yes, but you couldn't give the content to everybody in the world. And you had to waste 1 hour or so in real-time to make a copy (which was degraded anyway).
Yes, but you couldn't give the content to everybody in the world. And you had to waste 1 hour or so in real-time to make a copy (which was degraded anyway).
> And you had to waste 1 hour or so in real-time to make a copy (which was degraded anyway).
No, you didn't. You either watched while recording, or just started recording, went to do something else and came back in an hour. Either way, the time wasn't wasted.
No, you didn't. You either watched while recording, or just started recording, went to do something else and came back in an hour. Either way, the time wasn't wasted.
Why constrain your response to the arguments above? Why not try to answer by covering the whole spectrum and the gist of what I tried to convey?
The gist of my argument was about the scalability of today's piracy vs the old time VHS piracy. And that doesn't change just because you could "watch the show you copied" too so "that time wasn't wasted".
The "watched while recording" part only makes sense for a show you already wanted to watch. And you just got one copy out of it. And the "do something else" part still takes a few minutes.
On top of those you still needed the physical giving of the tape to the other person, PLUS to cover the non-insignificant cost of the tape. And lets not even get about how much selection you could produce or store at your home.
In contrast, today you can download and share 10,000s of shows without having watched any of them and without wanting to watch them in the fist place, in just the time it takes to make an upload or share a link. And not just to one person, but to the WHOLE internet.
Only the original pirate needs to do any real-time capture (and that's only for some special cases, like camera captures of movies or VCRed shows -- more often than not, they can just rip something in a few minutes).
And even them, after the capture can immediately share the digital copy with BILLIONS of people, instead of the just one person you got in the VHS days.
There's really no comparison.
The gist of my argument was about the scalability of today's piracy vs the old time VHS piracy. And that doesn't change just because you could "watch the show you copied" too so "that time wasn't wasted".
The "watched while recording" part only makes sense for a show you already wanted to watch. And you just got one copy out of it. And the "do something else" part still takes a few minutes.
On top of those you still needed the physical giving of the tape to the other person, PLUS to cover the non-insignificant cost of the tape. And lets not even get about how much selection you could produce or store at your home.
In contrast, today you can download and share 10,000s of shows without having watched any of them and without wanting to watch them in the fist place, in just the time it takes to make an upload or share a link. And not just to one person, but to the WHOLE internet.
Only the original pirate needs to do any real-time capture (and that's only for some special cases, like camera captures of movies or VCRed shows -- more often than not, they can just rip something in a few minutes).
And even them, after the capture can immediately share the digital copy with BILLIONS of people, instead of the just one person you got in the VHS days.
There's really no comparison.
In Germany for example there is a specific amount of money you have to pay on devices or storage capacity regarding devices or mediums which reproduce or store data.
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauschalabgabe
If you buy a external drive with less than 1TB you pay 7€ extra taxes.
If you buy a external drive with less than 1TB you pay 7€ extra taxes.
And? As someone in this thread said, DRM-free music is standard these days and overall piracy is still rather low.
What do you think DRM is actively doing? Or is there another point you wanted to make?
What do you think DRM is actively doing? Or is there another point you wanted to make?
There's a huge difference between lending your friend a VHS and uploading a torrent. And the idea of owning a license to a piece of intellectual property shouldn't be a hard thing to wrap one's head around if you work in software.
I can wrap my mind around idea of licensing just fine. That in no way means I agree with current one-sided state of affairs in copyright law.
I also don't see why did you bring torrenting into the debate - do you consider me sharing am movie to my friend from my iPad to his a crime? Is that the same as torrenting? Or why am I prevented from doing that due to DRM?
I also don't see why did you bring torrenting into the debate - do you consider me sharing am movie to my friend from my iPad to his a crime? Is that the same as torrenting? Or why am I prevented from doing that due to DRM?
Strictly speaking, you don't have the right to do that under the licensing agreement for digital media. You're perfectly within your rights to lend your friend a DVD.
Indeed. Why is that acceptable state of affairs? Remember, we have a law that essentially tells everyone that lending / selling your DVD is legal. Why isn't there such a law for digital content? Why can I sell a Die Hard DVD but not a Die Hard movie file?
Because there's a difference between owning a physical copy of media and owning the rights to distribute it.
Why do we let that difference exist? You're trying to lead the debate about changing laws by quoting laws.
For a lot of people, the law is a source of morality. Whatever it says is desirable by definition.
So you believe spending 15$ on a DVD entitles everyone ever to have access to that IP?
No, what gave you that idea? Do you believe that companies should be able to give you arbitrary restrictions on any thing you bought?
>Why can I sell a Die Hard DVD but not a Die Hard movie file?
Music downloads are largely DRM-free these days, but piracy is still as low as ever. It really is just powerful media companies abusing their power to make a little more money.
A legitimate copy of a new hit single costs like $1, though.
Not exactly the same for anyone whose work normally costs $50 or $5,000 because it's more expensive to produce or has a more specialised market.
Not exactly the same for anyone whose work normally costs $50 or $5,000 because it's more expensive to produce or has a more specialised market.
some people used to record the chart show off Radio 1 and share the cassettes with their friends. It didn't stop me buying music, I couldn't afford to buy music and would have done without it. In fact it turned me into a music fan, and once older I bought a lot more music because of it.
Where the official sources beat the torrents is on convenience. Spotify and Apple whatever are easy to use and busy people will pay.
A similar effect is possible with TV shows and films. I have Amazon prime, and Netflix. Prime costs me £79 a year, Netflix costs me £7.99 a month I think. Now I have a Youview box. I can watch Netflix on it but not Prime. For prime I have to buy another device or use my laptop. I wanted to see what the 'Game of Thrones' fuss was about, neither has it (amazon charges per episode actually). NowTV from Sky does, so I got a trial subscription, but the NowTV app on the Youview box only works for films, not TV shows (!), and the NowTV pc app doesn't work on Linux.
So I pay for three services and still can't watch due to petty rights issues. I could watch them all on Kodi for free of course, but that would be wrong (even though I have paid for them elsewhere).
In summary, if they refuse to get with the 21st Century they will sell less shows. If they allowed easier access to the shows they would beat piracy with convenience. DRM just makes it harder. Don't get me started on HDMI DRM
Where the official sources beat the torrents is on convenience. Spotify and Apple whatever are easy to use and busy people will pay.
A similar effect is possible with TV shows and films. I have Amazon prime, and Netflix. Prime costs me £79 a year, Netflix costs me £7.99 a month I think. Now I have a Youview box. I can watch Netflix on it but not Prime. For prime I have to buy another device or use my laptop. I wanted to see what the 'Game of Thrones' fuss was about, neither has it (amazon charges per episode actually). NowTV from Sky does, so I got a trial subscription, but the NowTV app on the Youview box only works for films, not TV shows (!), and the NowTV pc app doesn't work on Linux.
So I pay for three services and still can't watch due to petty rights issues. I could watch them all on Kodi for free of course, but that would be wrong (even though I have paid for them elsewhere).
In summary, if they refuse to get with the 21st Century they will sell less shows. If they allowed easier access to the shows they would beat piracy with convenience. DRM just makes it harder. Don't get me started on HDMI DRM
DRM and other anti-piracy measures are all about making piracy harder, not impossible. It's not an all or nothing venture.
Every little bit you make copying harder results in fewer people copying.
Cntrl C Cntrl V makes it so my mom can pirate. And she did during the Napster days. But she can't figure out BitTorrent on her own. Well, she could, but there is a learning curve, and most people aren't interested in it.
They don't have to make it impossible. They just have to make it annoying.
Easy piracy destroyed the music industry. The other media industries are rightfully suspicious.
Every little bit you make copying harder results in fewer people copying.
Cntrl C Cntrl V makes it so my mom can pirate. And she did during the Napster days. But she can't figure out BitTorrent on her own. Well, she could, but there is a learning curve, and most people aren't interested in it.
They don't have to make it impossible. They just have to make it annoying.
Easy piracy destroyed the music industry. The other media industries are rightfully suspicious.
The DRM approach to piracy is an all or nothing thing. Once one person cracks a DRM setup they can distribute any movie protected by that setup to as many people as they want in whatever medium they want.
I think propagandizing piracy has had a lot more to do with its decline than ease of use. Try using popcorn time. It is incredibly easy.
I think propagandizing piracy has had a lot more to do with its decline than ease of use. Try using popcorn time. It is incredibly easy.
I don't even know that this is true. In my personal experience (so completely anecdotal), pirated content is always much easier to ingest than paid, DRM'd content. There hasn't ever been a single DRM system that actually made piracy more difficult. If anything, it just made usage for legitimate users difficult. The only exception that I can think of were the DRM systems for video games that existed (and some still do) where it takes them a week or 2 to crack the DRM. Even then, the people that weren't going to pay for those games just wait until the DRM is cracked. It didn't actually make pirating the games harder, it just made it inconvenient for a little while longer but that's never been shown to equate to more paying customers.
Easy piracy destroyed the music industry.
They also have a problem of delivering more than was traditionally available, normalizing greater intrusiveness. Ad tech allows a staggering amount of control and analysis that never existed with traditional media advertising. DRM lets you not only prevent user copying like old-school "copy protection", it lets you enforce any arbitrary scheme of "rights" that you can code into the DRM system (e.g. you could make viewing video on high-end displays exclusive to a "premium" option). Advertisers and publishers are now accustomed to these and will fight any attempt to take them away.
As others have mentioned, music is almost copyright free. Book publishers like springer will sell you watermarked ebooks, and you can find almost any game actually worth your time on gog.com.
If producers and consumers wanted, the same could happen for movies. If creators and consumers wanted, copyright and patents could be reformed to stop the gouging of culture, creativity, and entrepreneurship for short-term profit.
If producers and consumers wanted, the same could happen for movies. If creators and consumers wanted, copyright and patents could be reformed to stop the gouging of culture, creativity, and entrepreneurship for short-term profit.
*music is almost DRM free.
Well-done DRM is even worse, because it normalizes usurping control from your machine in the name of protecting the interests of a 3rd party.
> DRM-free content and ad blocker
While I agree with the rest of your post, I think that comparing these two is not quite accurate. DRM-free content should, I think, be compared to ad-free content; and blocking ads should probably be compared to stripping DRM. (For the record, I'm not making any moral judgement here; I do the first two as much as possible, and the last two all the time.) My point is that the consumption of DRM-free content shows the seller that you approve of it, and encourages the production of more; whereas the use of an ad blocker doesn't (or at least doesn't seem to, in any direct way) discourage the use of ads.
While I agree with the rest of your post, I think that comparing these two is not quite accurate. DRM-free content should, I think, be compared to ad-free content; and blocking ads should probably be compared to stripping DRM. (For the record, I'm not making any moral judgement here; I do the first two as much as possible, and the last two all the time.) My point is that the consumption of DRM-free content shows the seller that you approve of it, and encourages the production of more; whereas the use of an ad blocker doesn't (or at least doesn't seem to, in any direct way) discourage the use of ads.
Ads I can see as they pay for content, DRM, not so much as the content has already been paid for.
"Travelling frequently in Europe, I’ve had the chance to use two approaches to the underground/metro/subway, the Paris Metro and the U-bahn in various German cities."
The author failed to understand the actual cultural issue driving the two approaches: In Germany you don't need a gate to have people pay the ticket, most people will do it anyway. In Paris, most people won't pay and just ride for free, and tragedy of the commons ensues.
So by his own argument, DRM is a product of the culture of a people.
The author failed to understand the actual cultural issue driving the two approaches: In Germany you don't need a gate to have people pay the ticket, most people will do it anyway. In Paris, most people won't pay and just ride for free, and tragedy of the commons ensues.
So by his own argument, DRM is a product of the culture of a people.
All forms of DRM can be defeated by pointing an iPhone at them.
Why do you need a car when you can walk? Why use encryption when you can physically hide things? The answer to these questions and more is that when it isn't about faster/better/cheaper, it's about improving quality of life. Be it increasing privacy, or removing undue burdens.
It depends on what the goal of the DRM creators is. If their goal is to prevent copies that most people would consider watchable, then they would not consider the iPhone to defeat the DRM. But some screen recording technique with framerate sync would defeat the DRM. If their goal was to prevent sharing of the original compressed stream, then they would consider even screen recording to not defeat the DRM.
We offer research reports and white papers for your management and Board from experienced advisors
Strangely, I couldn't find any of these reports available for free download and in the public domain...
Strangely, I couldn't find any of these reports available for free download and in the public domain...
Strangely, I couldn't find any of these reports available for free download and in the public domain...
No, but I bet if you pay for them you get them as PDFs, unencrypted, which you can view on a vast breadth of devices and OSes and applications, annotate/modify, clip parts out of, convert to other formats, and otherwise manipulate as you please, with no arbitrary technological restrictions getting in the way. (Compare to, say, Adobe Digital Editions wrapped PDFs, which can only be read in designated apps and limit you to the capabilities of those apps.)
No, but I bet if you pay for them you get them as PDFs, unencrypted, which you can view on a vast breadth of devices and OSes and applications, annotate/modify, clip parts out of, convert to other formats, and otherwise manipulate as you please, with no arbitrary technological restrictions getting in the way. (Compare to, say, Adobe Digital Editions wrapped PDFs, which can only be read in designated apps and limit you to the capabilities of those apps.)
with no arbitrary technological restrictions getting in the way
How does the arbitrariness of those technological restrictions differ from the arbitrariness of the legal restrictions which I'm sure the author would insist upon, should you decide to republish their work? To me they are the same thing - mechanisms for saying "you might've bought this but the original owner still has a say in what you do with it".
The world IMHO is a better place because there are mechanisms by why IP creators can be paid. Yes there is poorly written DRM (Sony, we're looking at you) but that is a problem of execution, not one of concept.
How does the arbitrariness of those technological restrictions differ from the arbitrariness of the legal restrictions which I'm sure the author would insist upon, should you decide to republish their work? To me they are the same thing - mechanisms for saying "you might've bought this but the original owner still has a say in what you do with it".
The world IMHO is a better place because there are mechanisms by why IP creators can be paid. Yes there is poorly written DRM (Sony, we're looking at you) but that is a problem of execution, not one of concept.
> How does the arbitrariness of those technological restrictions differ from the arbitrariness of the legal restrictions which I'm sure the author would insist upon, should you decide to republish their work?
One of those is decided by a democratic process, the other is dictated by one party.
> but that is a problem of execution, not one of concept.
Actually, it is a problem of the concept. It is asking for computers to be robbed of their defining characteristic, and to be put under dictatorial control.
See also Cory Doctorow's talks on the topic, like maybe this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYXBJOFgeI (he gave this and similar talks in many places, you can find quite a few of them on youtube, I have no clue whether this particular one is good)
One of those is decided by a democratic process, the other is dictated by one party.
> but that is a problem of execution, not one of concept.
Actually, it is a problem of the concept. It is asking for computers to be robbed of their defining characteristic, and to be put under dictatorial control.
See also Cory Doctorow's talks on the topic, like maybe this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYXBJOFgeI (he gave this and similar talks in many places, you can find quite a few of them on youtube, I have no clue whether this particular one is good)
> Yes there is poorly written DRM (Sony, we're looking at you) but that is a problem of execution, not one of concept.
So you mean that there are Rootkits that are written in a good way?
So you mean that there are Rootkits that are written in a good way?
[deleted]
Not sure what you're getting at. Lack of DRM does not mean not getting paid for your work.
[deleted]
"All intellectual property should be free! Except the IP I create which I should be paid for!" is problematic. The author of this piece contributes to the (perceived) necessity of copy protection.
Also those armed policemen in Paris aren't there to shoot fare evaders...
Also those armed policemen in Paris aren't there to shoot fare evaders...
> "All intellectual property should be free! Except the IP I create which I should be paid for!"
That's a strawman. People should be paid for their work, but that doesn't give them the right to impose extralegal restrictions on how I use their work through technology.
If you think that DRM is about piracy, you're living in a fantasy world. Almost all DRMd content - movies, books, music, news - is readily available through illegal or alternative channels with the DRM stripped out. What IS true is that DRM enables several consumer-hostile revenue models for content producers. For example, unskippable ads at the beginning of Blu-Ray releases.
That's a strawman. People should be paid for their work, but that doesn't give them the right to impose extralegal restrictions on how I use their work through technology.
If you think that DRM is about piracy, you're living in a fantasy world. Almost all DRMd content - movies, books, music, news - is readily available through illegal or alternative channels with the DRM stripped out. What IS true is that DRM enables several consumer-hostile revenue models for content producers. For example, unskippable ads at the beginning of Blu-Ray releases.
[deleted](1)
If only snappiness were logic, that would be a stinging rejoinder.
It’s like checking the lift ticket, yes, but also the guy checks you are only wearing gear hired from the resort shop, skis with you down the slope and trips you if you try any manoeuvres that weren’t taught to you by the resort ski instructor; then as you go down the slope he pushes you away from the moguls because those are a premium feature and finally you get to run the gauntlet of armed security guards at the bottom of the slope checking for people who haven’t paid.
How is this at all an accurate analogy for DRM?
How is this at all an accurate analogy for DRM?
This is probably an analogy for frameworks like the Protected Media Path [1] [2], which revokes authorization/decryption when "untrusted" components are detected.
[1] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa3...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_Media_Path
[1] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa3...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_Media_Path
How do you play your blu-ray discs on linux btw.?
Bonus question if you succeeded: did you break any laws doing so?
Bonus question if you succeeded: did you break any laws doing so?
1. Realise that you don't have a blu-ray drive.
2. Install Transmission and download a rip.
Bonus answer: I probably broke laws making my morning coffee.
Bonus answer: I probably broke laws making my morning coffee.
"The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day."
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6611240-three-felonies-a...
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6611240-three-felonies-a...
The problem with technology-enforced restrictions isn’t that they allow legitimate enforcement of rights; it’s the collateral damage they cause in the process.
Indeed, but the problem with not making any effort to enforce restrictions technically is that typically you then aren't enforcing your legitimate rights.
The metro analogy was interesting. If the system in Germany works, it is because people are honest and pay for what they are using without physical compulsion.
Sadly, if you try to start a business creating original content and making it available online in the same spirit of trust, you will quickly learn that many people in the world are not so honest.
You will also learn that unlike a citywide metro system, it is all too easy for someone of less noble intentions to not only take your content for themselves without paying but also set up their own redistribution channels and steal your customers and your revenues.
A third lesson you will learn is that a lot of people may quite innocently assume that if they can do something then it's allowed, particularly if they speak a different language and don't necessarily understand the deal being offered. DRM can be quite effective at deterring this sort of casual and often unintentional infringement.
Indeed, but the problem with not making any effort to enforce restrictions technically is that typically you then aren't enforcing your legitimate rights.
The metro analogy was interesting. If the system in Germany works, it is because people are honest and pay for what they are using without physical compulsion.
Sadly, if you try to start a business creating original content and making it available online in the same spirit of trust, you will quickly learn that many people in the world are not so honest.
You will also learn that unlike a citywide metro system, it is all too easy for someone of less noble intentions to not only take your content for themselves without paying but also set up their own redistribution channels and steal your customers and your revenues.
A third lesson you will learn is that a lot of people may quite innocently assume that if they can do something then it's allowed, particularly if they speak a different language and don't necessarily understand the deal being offered. DRM can be quite effective at deterring this sort of casual and often unintentional infringement.
> Sadly, if you try to start a business creating original content and making it available online in the same spirit of trust, you will quickly learn that many people in the world are not so honest.
Counterpoint: gog.com
Moreover, I have yet to see a movie that wasn't available on an illegal streaming/downloading site the day it was released on Blu-Ray, DRM or not.
Counterpoint: gog.com
Moreover, I have yet to see a movie that wasn't available on an illegal streaming/downloading site the day it was released on Blu-Ray, DRM or not.
GOG is great. I buy from them myself sometimes. However, it's also an anomaly, and much smaller than the obvious comparison in this case, Steam.
And in terms of things being available immediately, the economics of mainstream movies are quite different. There's a whole world of niche content out there that doesn't generate gazillions of dollars and that won't be leaked when it's barely reached theatres. For smaller operators, deterring casual infringement even to a moderate degree can literally be the difference between making enough money to continue operating and going out of business.
And in terms of things being available immediately, the economics of mainstream movies are quite different. There's a whole world of niche content out there that doesn't generate gazillions of dollars and that won't be leaked when it's barely reached theatres. For smaller operators, deterring casual infringement even to a moderate degree can literally be the difference between making enough money to continue operating and going out of business.
> set up their own redistribution channels and steal your customers and your revenues.
And DRM prevents that how exactly?
> A third lesson you will learn is that a lot of people may quite innocently assume that if they can do something then it's allowed
I would take this as a hint that it probably should be allowed then. If lots of people innocently assume that something is perfectly legal, the way of tyranny is to build a police state, the way of democracy is to make it legal.
And DRM prevents that how exactly?
> A third lesson you will learn is that a lot of people may quite innocently assume that if they can do something then it's allowed
I would take this as a hint that it probably should be allowed then. If lots of people innocently assume that something is perfectly legal, the way of tyranny is to build a police state, the way of democracy is to make it legal.
And DRM prevents that how exactly?
It depends on the form of DRM and its effects.
One practical scenario is that most of the revenue from a new work may be generated in the early days. This is often the case with things like computer games, pop music, and big ticket movies. If DRM delays those trying to set up copycat channels, even by a few days or weeks, much of that revenue may already have been collected.
Another is that fingerprinting techniques may allow for things like automatic takedowns on the major hosting services, or identification of the source of a major leak so full legal action can be taken against the right targets.
I would take this as a hint that it probably should be allowed then.
It's not that simple. To give an obvious example that upset a lot of people, Google added a video download icon in Chrome a few months ago, right there in the controls alongside changing the volume and so on. A lot of people running small web sites that provided video content saw a spike in people who were sharing that content in violation of their terms, and it turned out that many people assumed the download button was a new feature on the site without realising that it was Chrome that had changed. This caused big problems for web developers working in this area, and a lot of complaints to Google about actively encouraging people to violate copyrights. And simply changing the way videos were served so Chrome couldn't provide that facility in the same way then fixed the problem again.
If lots of people innocently assume that something is perfectly legal, the way of tyranny is to build a police state, the way of democracy is to make it legal.
Democracy only works when the population is properly informed and understands the implications. That's hardly the case in the sort of situation I mentioned above.
It depends on the form of DRM and its effects.
One practical scenario is that most of the revenue from a new work may be generated in the early days. This is often the case with things like computer games, pop music, and big ticket movies. If DRM delays those trying to set up copycat channels, even by a few days or weeks, much of that revenue may already have been collected.
Another is that fingerprinting techniques may allow for things like automatic takedowns on the major hosting services, or identification of the source of a major leak so full legal action can be taken against the right targets.
I would take this as a hint that it probably should be allowed then.
It's not that simple. To give an obvious example that upset a lot of people, Google added a video download icon in Chrome a few months ago, right there in the controls alongside changing the volume and so on. A lot of people running small web sites that provided video content saw a spike in people who were sharing that content in violation of their terms, and it turned out that many people assumed the download button was a new feature on the site without realising that it was Chrome that had changed. This caused big problems for web developers working in this area, and a lot of complaints to Google about actively encouraging people to violate copyrights. And simply changing the way videos were served so Chrome couldn't provide that facility in the same way then fixed the problem again.
If lots of people innocently assume that something is perfectly legal, the way of tyranny is to build a police state, the way of democracy is to make it legal.
Democracy only works when the population is properly informed and understands the implications. That's hardly the case in the sort of situation I mentioned above.
> Democracy only works when the population is properly informed and understands the implications. That's hardly the case in the sort of situation I mentioned above.
And so we install draconian enforcement technology in everyone's home ... in order to make people more informed on the issue?
And so we install draconian enforcement technology in everyone's home ... in order to make people more informed on the issue?
Who said anything about draconian measures? Most modern DRM is almost completely transparent to legitimate users, particularly the technologies used with rental models rather than permanent purchases (where as I've said elsewhere I think both the ethics and practicalities are somewhat different).
It's easy to snipe from the cheap seats, so let me ask you some questions now instead. Do you believe that financial models other than a complete, permanent purchase of a copy of a work are useful? And if so, how would you propose to set up a realistic rental/library/PPV scheme for digital content without relying on anything that could be called DRM?
It's easy to snipe from the cheap seats, so let me ask you some questions now instead. Do you believe that financial models other than a complete, permanent purchase of a copy of a work are useful? And if so, how would you propose to set up a realistic rental/library/PPV scheme for digital content without relying on anything that could be called DRM?
Most modern DRM is almost completely transparent to legitimate users, particularly the technologies used with rental models rather than permanent purchases (where as I've said elsewhere I think both the ethics and practicalities are somewhat different).
I disagree, please provides examples of commonly used and almost completely transparent DRM. I'll start with a counterpoint: a user on Chrome (not exactly a minority), Firefox or Opera can't watch Netflix with a resolution over 720p.
I disagree, please provides examples of commonly used and almost completely transparent DRM. I'll start with a counterpoint: a user on Chrome (not exactly a minority), Firefox or Opera can't watch Netflix with a resolution over 720p.
I disagree, please provides examples of commonly used and almost completely transparent DRM.
I use several major business software packages. I run the program. It loads and I use it.
I put a DVD or Blu-ray into my player. I play the disc. I watch the movie.
I'm not a big gamer myself these days, but I've rarely heard anyone complain about Steam's DRM in years.
I use several major business software packages. I run the program. It loads and I use it.
I put a DVD or Blu-ray into my player. I play the disc. I watch the movie.
I'm not a big gamer myself these days, but I've rarely heard anyone complain about Steam's DRM in years.
I use several major business software packages. I run the program. It loads and I use it.
Without knowing which DRM they use, this example is irrelevant.
I put a DVD or Blu-ray into my player. I play the disc. I watch the movie.
This is a classic WORKSFORME. New Blu-rays are released with new versions of the DRM, which don't work with older players unless they're connected to the Internet to update their firmware - and if it exists.
Search for "can't play avatar blueray" and you'll find many people for whom it's not even close to transparent.
I'm not a big gamer myself these days, but I've rarely heard anyone complain about Steam's DRM in years.
If you beat them for a while, eventually people stop complaining. I don't know about you, but growing up, not being able to lend games between friends was unthinkable. Steam robs new players of this communal experience, excluding poorer kids from social groups because they can't play the games everyone else has.
It's not just not transparent; I find it vile.
Without knowing which DRM they use, this example is irrelevant.
I put a DVD or Blu-ray into my player. I play the disc. I watch the movie.
This is a classic WORKSFORME. New Blu-rays are released with new versions of the DRM, which don't work with older players unless they're connected to the Internet to update their firmware - and if it exists.
Search for "can't play avatar blueray" and you'll find many people for whom it's not even close to transparent.
I'm not a big gamer myself these days, but I've rarely heard anyone complain about Steam's DRM in years.
If you beat them for a while, eventually people stop complaining. I don't know about you, but growing up, not being able to lend games between friends was unthinkable. Steam robs new players of this communal experience, excluding poorer kids from social groups because they can't play the games everyone else has.
It's not just not transparent; I find it vile.
So ... DRM is completely transparent if it doesn't get in your way when you only do what the DRM allows you to do?
That's a whole lot like you are completely free to do whatever you want to do, as long as it's what we told you to do, isn't it?
That's a whole lot like you are completely free to do whatever you want to do, as long as it's what we told you to do, isn't it?
That's a whole lot like you are completely free to do whatever you want to do, as long as it's what we told you to do, isn't it?
Well, since that's fundamentally what copyright is about... yes. What were you expecting?
Well, since that's fundamentally what copyright is about... yes. What were you expecting?
I guess I was expecting something that explains your argument?
I mean, unless I completely misunderstood you, you justified DRM by saying that it was ok because it doesn't get in your way ("it's transparent"). And now you are essentially saying that if it did get in your way, that would also be ok, because that's the purpose of DRM. Or in other words: Whether it does get in your way is completely irrelevant as to whether or not you think DRM is acceptable. So, what was your argument, then?
I mean, unless I completely misunderstood you, you justified DRM by saying that it was ok because it doesn't get in your way ("it's transparent"). And now you are essentially saying that if it did get in your way, that would also be ok, because that's the purpose of DRM. Or in other words: Whether it does get in your way is completely irrelevant as to whether or not you think DRM is acceptable. So, what was your argument, then?
I mean, unless I completely misunderstood you, you justified DRM by saying that it was ok because it doesn't get in your way ("it's transparent").
With the extra qualifier that what you're doing is actually permitted/legal, yes, that's essentially my point. That condition rather changes the meaning, though. Indeed, the difference it makes is essentially the point of having DRM in the first place.
With the extra qualifier that what you're doing is actually permitted/legal, yes, that's essentially my point. That condition rather changes the meaning, though. Indeed, the difference it makes is essentially the point of having DRM in the first place.
> With the extra qualifier that what you're doing is actually permitted/legal, yes, that's essentially my point.
Now, the question is: What do you mean by "permitted/legal"? Permitted by general copyright law, or permitted by the part of the DMCA that specifically makes it illegal to circumvent or share information about how to circumvent DRM?
Now, the question is: What do you mean by "permitted/legal"? Permitted by general copyright law, or permitted by the part of the DMCA that specifically makes it illegal to circumvent or share information about how to circumvent DRM?
> Who said anything about draconian measures?
DRM is a draconian measure, by necessity.
> Most modern DRM is almost completely transparent to legitimate users
What do you mean by that and how is it relevant?
> Do you believe that financial models other than a complete, permanent purchase of a copy of a work are useful?
Maybe.
> And if so, how would you propose to set up a realistic rental/library/PPV scheme for digital content without relying on anything that could be called DRM?
By just leaving out the DRM?
DRM is a draconian measure, by necessity.
> Most modern DRM is almost completely transparent to legitimate users
What do you mean by that and how is it relevant?
> Do you believe that financial models other than a complete, permanent purchase of a copy of a work are useful?
Maybe.
> And if so, how would you propose to set up a realistic rental/library/PPV scheme for digital content without relying on anything that could be called DRM?
By just leaving out the DRM?
By just leaving out the DRM?
I once thought as you do. Then I ran a business that invested significant money, some of it my own, in making original content. We really tried to avoid going down the DRM path, because I didn't like the idea of risking inconveniencing any legitimate customers. Today, in light of the experience doing that, I am much, much less sympathetic to claims that DRM doesn't do anything or should be abolished or whatever.
The degree to which some people will just blatantly rip you off and even lie to your face about it afterwards is staggering. The arguments that if people are going to copy your stuff then they're going to get it somewhere else anyway so taking steps to make it harder have no benefits are simply wrong. There is nothing hypothetical about this. It is not conjecture or thought experiment. It is based on cold, hard data and experience with real money at risk.
Incidentally, in the entire history of that business, as far as I'm aware we've never received a single complaint from a legitimate user that any of our safeguards was interfering with their normal enjoyment of the content. There have been one or two cases we couldn't absolutely prove but were pretty sure about, and otherwise basically 100% of people who complained about not being able to do something turned out to be trying to violate our terms and getting upset when our safeguards stopped them. BTW, in case you think we're just being paranoid, we have literally had people asking us why they couldn't access our material with well-known ripping software, to give one example of how blatant the abuse can be.
I once thought as you do. Then I ran a business that invested significant money, some of it my own, in making original content. We really tried to avoid going down the DRM path, because I didn't like the idea of risking inconveniencing any legitimate customers. Today, in light of the experience doing that, I am much, much less sympathetic to claims that DRM doesn't do anything or should be abolished or whatever.
The degree to which some people will just blatantly rip you off and even lie to your face about it afterwards is staggering. The arguments that if people are going to copy your stuff then they're going to get it somewhere else anyway so taking steps to make it harder have no benefits are simply wrong. There is nothing hypothetical about this. It is not conjecture or thought experiment. It is based on cold, hard data and experience with real money at risk.
Incidentally, in the entire history of that business, as far as I'm aware we've never received a single complaint from a legitimate user that any of our safeguards was interfering with their normal enjoyment of the content. There have been one or two cases we couldn't absolutely prove but were pretty sure about, and otherwise basically 100% of people who complained about not being able to do something turned out to be trying to violate our terms and getting upset when our safeguards stopped them. BTW, in case you think we're just being paranoid, we have literally had people asking us why they couldn't access our material with well-known ripping software, to give one example of how blatant the abuse can be.
Well, as for your business I obviously can't tell whether it was a deserved market failure, but in the end, it mostly doesn't matter, because DRM is just such a fundamentally broken idea with so many negative externalities that it would be hard to find anything that I couldn't live without if it depended on DRM to exist.
However, I wonder about this:
> BTW, in case you think we're just being paranoid, we have literally had people asking us why they couldn't access our material with well-known ripping software, to give one example of how blatant the abuse can be.
What exactly is abuse about this? I mean, I get from what you are saying that you don't like it, but how is it abusive to use some tool to convert some content that you paid for into a format/transfer it into an environment of your own choice that you want to use it in? If your terms said that you couldn't do that, I would rather consider your terms abusive.
However, I wonder about this:
> BTW, in case you think we're just being paranoid, we have literally had people asking us why they couldn't access our material with well-known ripping software, to give one example of how blatant the abuse can be.
What exactly is abuse about this? I mean, I get from what you are saying that you don't like it, but how is it abusive to use some tool to convert some content that you paid for into a format/transfer it into an environment of your own choice that you want to use it in? If your terms said that you couldn't do that, I would rather consider your terms abusive.
The business I mentioned didn't fail. We were just forced to become more aggressive about protecting our IP, and contrary to everyone telling me otherwise, that strategy was very obviously effective even with still a relatively light touch. Like A/B testing a web site and hitting on a simple change that bumps your conversions by 20%, even making something a little less convenient to rip and share can make quite a big difference.
The objection to rippers is that we were effectively operating on a form of rental model. If someone is paying a lower price to rent your stuff, you can't let them rip all of it and keep it permanently anyway, and this was explicitly contrary to our terms. Obviously so was sharing it on major hosting services and even trying to monetize it, which sadly wasn't unheard of either.
The objection to rippers is that we were effectively operating on a form of rental model. If someone is paying a lower price to rent your stuff, you can't let them rip all of it and keep it permanently anyway, and this was explicitly contrary to our terms. Obviously so was sharing it on major hosting services and even trying to monetize it, which sadly wasn't unheard of either.
> The objection to rippers is that we were effectively operating on a form of rental model. If someone is paying a lower price to rent your stuff, you can't let them rip all of it and keep it permanently anyway, and this was explicitly contrary to our terms.
Now, did they ask for help with how to keep it permanently or with ripping it to their own device? You are constantly confusing those. If I paid for some content rental, I sure as hell would expect that I can put a copy of it on my laptop to watch/listen/read while offline on the train, and I would expect support for that.
Now, did they ask for help with how to keep it permanently or with ripping it to their own device? You are constantly confusing those. If I paid for some content rental, I sure as hell would expect that I can put a copy of it on my laptop to watch/listen/read while offline on the train, and I would expect support for that.
Without meaning to be rude, I'm not confusing anything, and what you would expect doesn't matter, only the law and the terms of our relationship with our customers do.
Still without meaning to be rude, I'm really not interested in discussing our position on that one in any more detail. What we offer is openly described, reasonable, and clearly stated before anyone commits to anything. We get overwhelmingly positive feedback within our target market and very few complaints. We tried playing nice about protecting our work -- far nicer than most people in this business, and probably for far longer too. But people abused it, and then straight-up lied to our faces to try to get us to release the locks and let them do it some more.
So now when someone tries to rip us off, we don't play so nice any more. None of our legitimate customers care, because they don't even notice. However, we do get to still have a business and pay the bills. As a bonus, we also waste far less time dealing with the kind of toxic "customer" who thinks a few dollars earns them 24/7 customer service to explain why they can't set up oursite.com.somecountry and resell all our stuff or give it away with their ads all over the place.
As I said, it's easy to snipe from the cheap seats, and it's easy to feel entitled as a customer. It looks a little different when it's you and your colleagues who gave up their jobs, sold their houses, didn't take holidays for years, and so on, and then a group of people carefully exploited your trusting nature to threaten everything you've built.
What I've shared in this discussion is just the real world experience of people who tried to be optimistic and trusting in the kind of way that others here seem to want, allowing the kinds of behaviour that others here seem to think don't cause any harm. The experience was not good, and operating on that basis proved to be unsustainable. That might upset people here who don't like the outcome we observed, but those are the facts, and to be honest I'm tiring of trying to explain this in the face of open hostility in comments and downvotes. If you want to learn the same lessons for yourself rather than taking my word for it, no-one is stopping you; the price of admission is explained in the previous paragraph.
Still without meaning to be rude, I'm really not interested in discussing our position on that one in any more detail. What we offer is openly described, reasonable, and clearly stated before anyone commits to anything. We get overwhelmingly positive feedback within our target market and very few complaints. We tried playing nice about protecting our work -- far nicer than most people in this business, and probably for far longer too. But people abused it, and then straight-up lied to our faces to try to get us to release the locks and let them do it some more.
So now when someone tries to rip us off, we don't play so nice any more. None of our legitimate customers care, because they don't even notice. However, we do get to still have a business and pay the bills. As a bonus, we also waste far less time dealing with the kind of toxic "customer" who thinks a few dollars earns them 24/7 customer service to explain why they can't set up oursite.com.somecountry and resell all our stuff or give it away with their ads all over the place.
As I said, it's easy to snipe from the cheap seats, and it's easy to feel entitled as a customer. It looks a little different when it's you and your colleagues who gave up their jobs, sold their houses, didn't take holidays for years, and so on, and then a group of people carefully exploited your trusting nature to threaten everything you've built.
What I've shared in this discussion is just the real world experience of people who tried to be optimistic and trusting in the kind of way that others here seem to want, allowing the kinds of behaviour that others here seem to think don't cause any harm. The experience was not good, and operating on that basis proved to be unsustainable. That might upset people here who don't like the outcome we observed, but those are the facts, and to be honest I'm tiring of trying to explain this in the face of open hostility in comments and downvotes. If you want to learn the same lessons for yourself rather than taking my word for it, no-one is stopping you; the price of admission is explained in the previous paragraph.
I would say that DRM is merely an inevitable outgrowth of our society's enshrinement and worship of the idea of "intellectual property". That word, "property", gives the opposite connotations of "copyright"--permanent rightful ownership vs a temporary grant of monopoly on an idea.
But yes, it's definitely the case that the cultural idea that humans and corporations have the right to own a copyright for a length of time greater than the duration of any human life means that for 99.99% of all works, the effective duration of copyright truly is forever, which reinforces the idea that copyright should be forever. And if it's forever and it's "property" why shouldn't strong, user-hostile DRM exist? It's the barbed-wire, severe-tire-damage, border-wall of electronic media.
But yes, it's definitely the case that the cultural idea that humans and corporations have the right to own a copyright for a length of time greater than the duration of any human life means that for 99.99% of all works, the effective duration of copyright truly is forever, which reinforces the idea that copyright should be forever. And if it's forever and it's "property" why shouldn't strong, user-hostile DRM exist? It's the barbed-wire, severe-tire-damage, border-wall of electronic media.
And the really weird part is that while the propaganda puts it as "protecting property", it really has exactly the opposite effect. When you buy a physical book, that book is indeed your property, and you can do with it whatever you want. Now, with DRM-infested ebooks, you are actually just licensing it for very restricted use.
You might as well be claiming that making private home ownership illegal would strengthen property rights.
You might as well be claiming that making private home ownership illegal would strengthen property rights.
The physical book comparison is interesting. Imagine there would be a way to publish physical books with DRM that all publishers would embrace. You open such a book without authorization and it's all gibberish. To read it you would need to have bought a special strip that you lay over the pages in order to read (don't matter the technical aspect, it's gedanken-experiment so let's consider such a strip magic for now). You buy this strip and enter a user agreement to only use it for yourself (you are not allowed to lend it - even to your children), it could easily be reverse-engineered but no-one would do it because that would be a felony.
No sane person would agree to such state of affairs but somehow now because our books are digital it's all off a sudden okay with almost everyone?
No sane person would agree to such state of affairs but somehow now because our books are digital it's all off a sudden okay with almost everyone?
RMS has been warning[1] about that specific problem for decades. Unfortunately, very few people listened. Now we have the additional problem of people already giving up property rights for shiny digital baubles. -sigh-
[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html
[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html
I'm getting a little exhausted in every thread about DRM and the likes to read about how "people don't listen to RMS". People don't listen to RMS because he makes no effort to be listened to and constantly takes absolutist stances which only harm what he defends.
In the case of DRM, many people have been talking about this problem for a long time. It's not a matter of consumers not listening, it's a matter of alternatives not developing in the market.
DRM in video games is a lesser problem as alternatives did develop. Steam, the #1 platform, doesn't enforce DRM. GOG and Humble Bundle have been running their platforms on mostly DRM-free games.
Who do you fault for alternatives not developing/not catching on in the ebooks/video world? Consumers for making the wrong choices? Companies for not trying hard enough? Governments for not regulating consumer rights?
In the case of DRM, many people have been talking about this problem for a long time. It's not a matter of consumers not listening, it's a matter of alternatives not developing in the market.
DRM in video games is a lesser problem as alternatives did develop. Steam, the #1 platform, doesn't enforce DRM. GOG and Humble Bundle have been running their platforms on mostly DRM-free games.
Who do you fault for alternatives not developing/not catching on in the ebooks/video world? Consumers for making the wrong choices? Companies for not trying hard enough? Governments for not regulating consumer rights?
> People don't listen to RMS because he makes no effort to be listened to
So ... you should only take advice from people who put in extra effort to specifically reach you?
> constantly takes absolutist stances
The concept of an absolutist stance as an accusation is nonsense, as it's orthogonal to whether it's right. If you are not willing to compromise on slavery, you are taking an absolutist stance. So should people have fought for only partial slavery in order to not harm what they defended?
> Governments for not regulating consumer rights?
How about governments not destroying consumer rights by making it illegal to understand how your own computer works?
So ... you should only take advice from people who put in extra effort to specifically reach you?
> constantly takes absolutist stances
The concept of an absolutist stance as an accusation is nonsense, as it's orthogonal to whether it's right. If you are not willing to compromise on slavery, you are taking an absolutist stance. So should people have fought for only partial slavery in order to not harm what they defended?
> Governments for not regulating consumer rights?
How about governments not destroying consumer rights by making it illegal to understand how your own computer works?
I am much more likely to pay attention to someone who makes at least a token effort to communicate his beliefs to human beings (including ones with very different backgrounds or values), yes. Of course. When people don't do this, it doesn't just make it harder to find common ground with them- it's evidence that they themselves are not credible or motivated by reason. The more outside the norm their message is, the more of a burden they have to figure out how to communicate that message to people who might not have the context to understand it. If they don't even make a token effort to do this, they're narcissists, not deep thinkers. Nutty people writing manifestos and going out of their way to drive away everyone who isn't 100.0% in agreement with them are a dime a dozen and generally don't make positive contributions to the world (which is fine by them, because their motivation is to write manifestos and call people out, not to make a positive difference in the world). If you truly care about this stuff, trying to prop up RMS as a spokesperson for these views is counterproductive. If you care about this stuff, you should be focused on getting better messages out there, and not even remotely concerned with trying to rationalize RMS. If anything, you should be among his harshest critics. People don't hate on RMS because they're opposed to everything he stands for, they hate on RMS because they really truly care about this stuff and he trivializes it.
You know, I agree with you that RMS might not be the most effective communicator and that maybe he should present his arguments differently in order to reach people more effectively.
What I completely don't understand is how people seem to derive from that that he owes them a certain style of communication before they agree with the content of his arguments, even though they seem to somehow understand the problem, and that the problem affects them just as much as him.
No matter how much of a nutjob or asshole or whatever else someone appears to be (or possibly is), that's not a reasonable reason for rejecting their argument once you have understood it, against all odds, especially so when they are arguing for something that is in your interest.
What I completely don't understand is how people seem to derive from that that he owes them a certain style of communication before they agree with the content of his arguments, even though they seem to somehow understand the problem, and that the problem affects them just as much as him.
No matter how much of a nutjob or asshole or whatever else someone appears to be (or possibly is), that's not a reasonable reason for rejecting their argument once you have understood it, against all odds, especially so when they are arguing for something that is in your interest.
Well, people love the nutjobs, and want to love the assholes. Is the style of communication really RMS's problem?
I think the problem is the content itself, not its delivery. RMS seems unable to separate the good arguments from the stupid ones. For example, don't have kids because of overpopulation (good argument), and also don't have kids because parents have to do whatever someone with money tells them to do instead of what's right (breathtakingly stupid argument).
The life RMS has chosen to live is inspiring on some level, but has also warped his perspective, and therefore his arguments often miss the mark.
I think the problem is the content itself, not its delivery. RMS seems unable to separate the good arguments from the stupid ones. For example, don't have kids because of overpopulation (good argument), and also don't have kids because parents have to do whatever someone with money tells them to do instead of what's right (breathtakingly stupid argument).
The life RMS has chosen to live is inspiring on some level, but has also warped his perspective, and therefore his arguments often miss the mark.
I can only listen to so many people. It makes sense to focus my efforts on people who are going to provide the best return on my investment of time.
Meanwhile, absolutism, while not a proof, is a pretty powerful heuristic in the messy real world of economic policy. And yes, this is also a human rights issue, but mostly in the same way that a food or housing shortage is a human rights issue: the roots are economic.
Slavery in particular is a red herring. In almost any other question, compromise is the way to go, so bringing up the extreme case of slavery adds more heat than light.
Meanwhile, absolutism, while not a proof, is a pretty powerful heuristic in the messy real world of economic policy. And yes, this is also a human rights issue, but mostly in the same way that a food or housing shortage is a human rights issue: the roots are economic.
Slavery in particular is a red herring. In almost any other question, compromise is the way to go, so bringing up the extreme case of slavery adds more heat than light.
I think the other poster sufficiently deconstructed your argument one way, but I want to point out that you haven't made any case that slavery is a red herring. Like, at all.
If this debate were taking place just prior to the civil war, there would be significant debate over whether slaves had human rights, and many making the economic case for slavery.
RMS is trying to tell you the same thing right now: that DRM is a tool that takes away some basic human rights, and instead of taking a moment to think about it, you simply dismiss it out of hand merely because you can see an economic case for it.
So take a few moments to consider the worst possible outcomes of adopting DRM, and whether history will regard the economic case for DRM as harshly as it regards the economic case for slavery.
If this debate were taking place just prior to the civil war, there would be significant debate over whether slaves had human rights, and many making the economic case for slavery.
RMS is trying to tell you the same thing right now: that DRM is a tool that takes away some basic human rights, and instead of taking a moment to think about it, you simply dismiss it out of hand merely because you can see an economic case for it.
So take a few moments to consider the worst possible outcomes of adopting DRM, and whether history will regard the economic case for DRM as harshly as it regards the economic case for slavery.
You're responding to a bunch of things I didn't say and don't believe. I'm not a fan of DRM, just defending the position that RMS isn't the best source on it.
Also, you yourself haven't made an argument that DRM is anywhere near as bad a problem as slavery was. It's nowhere close, and to imply otherwise is to cheapen the suffering of slaves in America. Is that enough of an argument that it's a red herring?
Also, you yourself haven't made an argument that DRM is anywhere near as bad a problem as slavery was. It's nowhere close, and to imply otherwise is to cheapen the suffering of slaves in America. Is that enough of an argument that it's a red herring?
> Also, you yourself haven't made an argument that DRM is anywhere near as bad a problem as slavery was.
This judgment was made with perfect hindsight in one case, and no hindsight in the other, so the conclusion is immediately suspect.
Like I said, consider the worst possible nightmare for DRM, and then judge whether the comparison is actually fair.
Finally, whether RMS is the best source on it is itself a red herring. If he makes a reasonable case for a nightmare outcome, his perspective is absolutely worth considering when weighing the pros and cons of DRM, regardless of how absolutist you think he is.
This judgment was made with perfect hindsight in one case, and no hindsight in the other, so the conclusion is immediately suspect.
Like I said, consider the worst possible nightmare for DRM, and then judge whether the comparison is actually fair.
Finally, whether RMS is the best source on it is itself a red herring. If he makes a reasonable case for a nightmare outcome, his perspective is absolutely worth considering when weighing the pros and cons of DRM, regardless of how absolutist you think he is.
You have the same lack of time machine as I do in regards to DRM. For the rest, I think I've made the points I care about well enough.
> I can only listen to so many people. It makes sense to focus my efforts on people who are going to provide the best return on my investment of time.
And those are the people who have plenty of resources to tailor their message to you because they are funded by some marketing department and therefore are easiest to digest?
> Meanwhile, absolutism, while not a proof, is a pretty powerful heuristic in the messy real world of economic policy.
A heuristic for what exactly? That you shouldn't consider an argument at all?
> And yes, this is also a human rights issue, but mostly in the same way that a food or housing shortage is a human rights issue: the roots are economic.
I am not sure I understand this point, and maybe you can explain, but I think DRM is much closer to privacy and control over your own life as far as its human rights aspects go than to lack of resources.
> Slavery in particular is a red herring. In almost any other question, compromise is the way to go, so bringing up the extreme case of slavery adds more heat than light.
I disagree. Because the concept of "almost any other question" doesn't really make sense. How do you partition the world into distinct questions that you then somehow count to determine what percentage needs a compromise as the answer?
The questions that you actually ask yourself are not useful for this, because you don't ever ask the questions where the status quo is something that you find acceptable and where everyone else agrees with you. But for anything that you think is perfectly fine in this world, you could easily construct a hypothetical world in which our current status quo would be deemed absolutist. So, arguably, everything that you are ok with as it is is actually an absolutist position and not a compromise. Whether something is considered absolutist has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the demand itself, but only with how far out it is from the current mainstream consensus. As soon as the consensus shifts, there is nothing absolutist about it anymore.
Also, you can trivially transform any absolutist demand into a compromise by simply replacing it with a completely crazy demand. I, for example, advocate for killing everyone who has ever said a positive word about DRM. But I would be willing to compromise to only outlaw DRM for the future, so I am not an absolutist, right?
Also, how is it even relevant that it is in almost every other question when you are trying to determine whether it is in the case of this specific question?
And those are the people who have plenty of resources to tailor their message to you because they are funded by some marketing department and therefore are easiest to digest?
> Meanwhile, absolutism, while not a proof, is a pretty powerful heuristic in the messy real world of economic policy.
A heuristic for what exactly? That you shouldn't consider an argument at all?
> And yes, this is also a human rights issue, but mostly in the same way that a food or housing shortage is a human rights issue: the roots are economic.
I am not sure I understand this point, and maybe you can explain, but I think DRM is much closer to privacy and control over your own life as far as its human rights aspects go than to lack of resources.
> Slavery in particular is a red herring. In almost any other question, compromise is the way to go, so bringing up the extreme case of slavery adds more heat than light.
I disagree. Because the concept of "almost any other question" doesn't really make sense. How do you partition the world into distinct questions that you then somehow count to determine what percentage needs a compromise as the answer?
The questions that you actually ask yourself are not useful for this, because you don't ever ask the questions where the status quo is something that you find acceptable and where everyone else agrees with you. But for anything that you think is perfectly fine in this world, you could easily construct a hypothetical world in which our current status quo would be deemed absolutist. So, arguably, everything that you are ok with as it is is actually an absolutist position and not a compromise. Whether something is considered absolutist has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the demand itself, but only with how far out it is from the current mainstream consensus. As soon as the consensus shifts, there is nothing absolutist about it anymore.
Also, you can trivially transform any absolutist demand into a compromise by simply replacing it with a completely crazy demand. I, for example, advocate for killing everyone who has ever said a positive word about DRM. But I would be willing to compromise to only outlaw DRM for the future, so I am not an absolutist, right?
Also, how is it even relevant that it is in almost every other question when you are trying to determine whether it is in the case of this specific question?
> And those are the people who have plenty of resources to tailor their message to you...
No.
> A heuristic for what exactly? That you shouldn't consider an argument at all?
No.
> How do you partition the world into distinct questions that you then somehow count to determine what percentage needs a compromise as the answer?
Sample the ones that come up in practice. We're all friends here, or should be, so it doesn't need to be perfectly formal.
> you don't ever ask the questions where the status quo is something that you find acceptable and where everyone else agrees with you
You sure know a lot about me. Oh wait, no you don't. I do my best to question things, which is all you can ask.
> Also, you can trivially transform any absolutist demand into a compromise by simply replacing it with a completely crazy demand.
Yes, lots of terrible things happen when you argue in bad faith. This isn't even the worst one.
> Also, how is it even relevant that it is in almost every other question when you are trying to determine whether it is in the case of this specific question?
Not much, which is another good reason not to bring up slavery. It's not relevant, which is basically all I was trying to say about it.
No.
> A heuristic for what exactly? That you shouldn't consider an argument at all?
No.
> How do you partition the world into distinct questions that you then somehow count to determine what percentage needs a compromise as the answer?
Sample the ones that come up in practice. We're all friends here, or should be, so it doesn't need to be perfectly formal.
> you don't ever ask the questions where the status quo is something that you find acceptable and where everyone else agrees with you
You sure know a lot about me. Oh wait, no you don't. I do my best to question things, which is all you can ask.
> Also, you can trivially transform any absolutist demand into a compromise by simply replacing it with a completely crazy demand.
Yes, lots of terrible things happen when you argue in bad faith. This isn't even the worst one.
> Also, how is it even relevant that it is in almost every other question when you are trying to determine whether it is in the case of this specific question?
Not much, which is another good reason not to bring up slavery. It's not relevant, which is basically all I was trying to say about it.
> No.
But?
> You sure know a lot about me. Oh wait, no you don't. I do my best to question things, which is all you can ask.
Which is besides the point. Whether it's all I can ask or not, it doesn't give you a useful answer. And yes, I am pretty sure I know about you that you are a human being, and therefore, general human psychology most likely applies, nothing more, nothing less.
Have you ever asked yourself whether it is a good compromise that your left thumb has not been removed when you were a child because of your hair color?
You haven't, right?
You haven't because it's just a completely crazy idea that there would never be any reason for you to consider it. One of presumably at the very least millions of equally crazy ideas that you could make up that you have never thought of, because, why would you? That is, except for the completely crazy idea that one should remove part of the genitals of children because of their gender. You probably have thought about that one, right?
And that is my point: The things that you have thought about are in no way a meaningfully representative sample of the set of all facts about how society operates, simply as a result of basic human psychology.
> Yes, lots of terrible things happen when you argue in bad faith. This isn't even the worst one.
Yeah, it's even worse when people reject arguments as "absolutist", you can't really get much more bad faith than that.
> Not much, which is another good reason not to bring up slavery. It's not relevant, which is basically all I was trying to say about it.
Well, except it is. That is, not slavery itself is relevant, but what is relevant is the way how people thought and argued about slavery before it became the consensus that slavery is bad. And if you agree that they were wrong about slavery being a good thing, then maybe it would be a good idea to understand how their thinking went wrong at the time. To understand how they convinced themselves that slavery was the right thing to do. Because if the method of reasoning that they used lead them to the conclusion that slavery was a good idea, then that probably means that their method of reasoning was unreliable, right?
So, if we can understand how they arrived at their conclusion, we can maybe use that understanding to see whether there are any conclusions that we arrive at today using the same kind of reasoning, and to then examine whether those conclusions maybe are also unreliable, and possibly wrong.
Whether slavery was in any way comparable to whatever conclusion we are examining now is completely irrelevant to this. The point is not to determine whether something is as bad as slavery. The point is to determine whether the method we use to conclude that something is right is the same that people used to conlude that slavery was right. And the reason why slavery is used as the reference for this is not because it was terrible, the reason is that it's something that is familiar. People nowadays generally have some understanding of how people back then justified slavery. Noone knows how the unfair distribution of bread in the year 1537 in some spanish village was justified, so it's a useless reference point, even if it might be a closer analogue to whatever we are discussing now.
But?
> You sure know a lot about me. Oh wait, no you don't. I do my best to question things, which is all you can ask.
Which is besides the point. Whether it's all I can ask or not, it doesn't give you a useful answer. And yes, I am pretty sure I know about you that you are a human being, and therefore, general human psychology most likely applies, nothing more, nothing less.
Have you ever asked yourself whether it is a good compromise that your left thumb has not been removed when you were a child because of your hair color?
You haven't, right?
You haven't because it's just a completely crazy idea that there would never be any reason for you to consider it. One of presumably at the very least millions of equally crazy ideas that you could make up that you have never thought of, because, why would you? That is, except for the completely crazy idea that one should remove part of the genitals of children because of their gender. You probably have thought about that one, right?
And that is my point: The things that you have thought about are in no way a meaningfully representative sample of the set of all facts about how society operates, simply as a result of basic human psychology.
> Yes, lots of terrible things happen when you argue in bad faith. This isn't even the worst one.
Yeah, it's even worse when people reject arguments as "absolutist", you can't really get much more bad faith than that.
> Not much, which is another good reason not to bring up slavery. It's not relevant, which is basically all I was trying to say about it.
Well, except it is. That is, not slavery itself is relevant, but what is relevant is the way how people thought and argued about slavery before it became the consensus that slavery is bad. And if you agree that they were wrong about slavery being a good thing, then maybe it would be a good idea to understand how their thinking went wrong at the time. To understand how they convinced themselves that slavery was the right thing to do. Because if the method of reasoning that they used lead them to the conclusion that slavery was a good idea, then that probably means that their method of reasoning was unreliable, right?
So, if we can understand how they arrived at their conclusion, we can maybe use that understanding to see whether there are any conclusions that we arrive at today using the same kind of reasoning, and to then examine whether those conclusions maybe are also unreliable, and possibly wrong.
Whether slavery was in any way comparable to whatever conclusion we are examining now is completely irrelevant to this. The point is not to determine whether something is as bad as slavery. The point is to determine whether the method we use to conclude that something is right is the same that people used to conlude that slavery was right. And the reason why slavery is used as the reference for this is not because it was terrible, the reason is that it's something that is familiar. People nowadays generally have some understanding of how people back then justified slavery. Noone knows how the unfair distribution of bread in the year 1537 in some spanish village was justified, so it's a useless reference point, even if it might be a closer analogue to whatever we are discussing now.
Stallman's a philosopher, so his precision and consistency in how he interprets the digital world is actually mandatory.
Do you know the time limits for how long your games can run in Steam's offline mode?
Do you know the time limits for how long your games can run in Steam's offline mode?
It's the other way around. Stallman started as a software engineer. His mandatory radical consistency is what makes him a philosopher.
I'm pretty sure you can just go to the steamapps directory and run the .exes directly
You can, but - as they're linked to Steam library, like 'pharrington wrote - whether or not the game will actually launch depends on Steam's opinion on this topic. The game may e.g. refuse to launch until you log in to Steam (and refresh whatever magic DRM sauce it needs on-line).
The DRM happens in the game's steam_api.dll, which the game executable is linked to.
[deleted]
Could you just make your argument instead of hinting it? Not being a gamer or a full-time developer I have no desire to go off and spend hours figuring out the intricacies of how Steam works to see whether I agree with your assertions or not.
You claim that DRM happens in this particular library. OK, and the practical consequences of that are...?
You claim that DRM happens in this particular library. OK, and the practical consequences of that are...?
The practical consequences are that Steam games will call into steam_api.dll to verify whether or not they should run, and will refuse to launch if Steam says so. E.g. if you're logged out of Steam, you'll be asked to log in. Whether or not you can launch a game without an Internet connection active depends on whether or not Steam will allow you to.
This DRM scheme is probably not very solid, though, as I recall replacement versions of steam_api.dll bundled with some bootleg titles.
This DRM scheme is probably not very solid, though, as I recall replacement versions of steam_api.dll bundled with some bootleg titles.
... that the claim made above that Steam doesn't enforce DRM is wrong?
> People don't listen to RMS because he makes no effort to be listened to and constantly takes absolutist stances which only harm what he defends.
I used to feel the same way quite a long time ago before I sat back and asked myself "what is the root cause of my distaste for his method of communicating his ideals?" I found that it was because I hadn't fully grasped his views on an emotional level. This argument that "even though RMS was right, the way he said it was reason not to listen to him" falls back to an appeal to emotion -- the fact he has very strong convictions is not relevant to the discussion of whether his arguments are valid.
But to explain why he is so absolutist, look at things from his point of view. From his view, all proprietary software is an injustice with no exceptions. Any attempt to take away user freedom is similarly an injustice. Now, if you fully accepted that view, how would you act as RMS? Would you make concessions on your sense of morality and ethics? Personally, I wouldn't and I don't.
> In the case of DRM, many people have been talking about this problem for a long time.
And RMS has been talking about the more general problem of user freedom since the very beginning. Not sure what your point here is. RMS is the single reason why we have the free software movement, and that movement came from a philosophical view that is fundamentally inseparable from the other pro-user-freedom sub-movements.
> Steam, the #1 platform, doesn't enforce DRM.
That's blatantly false. steam_api.dll implements DRM.
> Who do you fault for alternatives not developing/not catching on in the ebooks/video world? Consumers for making the wrong choices? Companies for not trying hard enough? Governments for not regulating consumer rights?
Governments pandering to publishers for several decades in strengthening the power of copyright through WIPO and similar treaties. Those publishers then had an enormous amount of power over artists. Combine this with the propaganda campaign by those publishers of "intellectual property"[1] to indoctrinate people into thinking that the ethics of property are at all applicable to things that aren't property.
So, at the end of the day, it's the fault of publishers making the government write laws that then unfairly strengthens the publishers' grip on the industry (where the industry is basically any artistic industry), and then using that control to convince the public that the status-quo is entirely justified and not unethical.
By the way, publishers mistreat artists all the time. So literally the only people that benefit from this system is publishers, not the people who actually make the things that you enjoy.
[1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html
I used to feel the same way quite a long time ago before I sat back and asked myself "what is the root cause of my distaste for his method of communicating his ideals?" I found that it was because I hadn't fully grasped his views on an emotional level. This argument that "even though RMS was right, the way he said it was reason not to listen to him" falls back to an appeal to emotion -- the fact he has very strong convictions is not relevant to the discussion of whether his arguments are valid.
But to explain why he is so absolutist, look at things from his point of view. From his view, all proprietary software is an injustice with no exceptions. Any attempt to take away user freedom is similarly an injustice. Now, if you fully accepted that view, how would you act as RMS? Would you make concessions on your sense of morality and ethics? Personally, I wouldn't and I don't.
> In the case of DRM, many people have been talking about this problem for a long time.
And RMS has been talking about the more general problem of user freedom since the very beginning. Not sure what your point here is. RMS is the single reason why we have the free software movement, and that movement came from a philosophical view that is fundamentally inseparable from the other pro-user-freedom sub-movements.
> Steam, the #1 platform, doesn't enforce DRM.
That's blatantly false. steam_api.dll implements DRM.
> Who do you fault for alternatives not developing/not catching on in the ebooks/video world? Consumers for making the wrong choices? Companies for not trying hard enough? Governments for not regulating consumer rights?
Governments pandering to publishers for several decades in strengthening the power of copyright through WIPO and similar treaties. Those publishers then had an enormous amount of power over artists. Combine this with the propaganda campaign by those publishers of "intellectual property"[1] to indoctrinate people into thinking that the ethics of property are at all applicable to things that aren't property.
So, at the end of the day, it's the fault of publishers making the government write laws that then unfairly strengthens the publishers' grip on the industry (where the industry is basically any artistic industry), and then using that control to convince the public that the status-quo is entirely justified and not unethical.
By the way, publishers mistreat artists all the time. So literally the only people that benefit from this system is publishers, not the people who actually make the things that you enjoy.
[1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html
Implementing optional drm isn't the same thing as enforcing drm. There is plenty of drm free content on steam, there is no drm free content on iTunes.
> Implementing optional drm isn't the same thing as enforcing drm.
It's optional for the developer in most cases (apparently writing code without it can be harder if you want to interface with Steam's APIs[1]), but not for the user.
Not to mention that the majority of developers do use Steam's DRM, so it's a bit of a moot point. Even if they don't force developers to use it, they are hardly an "alternative".
> there is no drm free content on iTunes.
That is absolutely false -- all music on iTunes is DRM-free. That may have been true before 2009, but it is not true today. In 2007 Steve Jobs wrote an open letter about Apple's use of DRM and announced they would stop doing it, and in 2009 they had signed all of the necessary agreements with publishers to make all iTunes music DRM-free[2]. It is believed this was in reaction to an anti-trust lawsuit that started in 2005 (that eventually ruled in Apple's favour in 2014 partly because of their decision to no longer use DRM).
Since 2009, iTunes allows you to download any music you've ever purchased as a DRM-free mp3 (which is now patent-encumbered as well). Apple Music is an unfortunate reversal to that previous position (it uses DRM), and interestingly came out the year after the lawsuit was finished.
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/1v3dej/im_an_indie... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairPlay
It's optional for the developer in most cases (apparently writing code without it can be harder if you want to interface with Steam's APIs[1]), but not for the user.
Not to mention that the majority of developers do use Steam's DRM, so it's a bit of a moot point. Even if they don't force developers to use it, they are hardly an "alternative".
> there is no drm free content on iTunes.
That is absolutely false -- all music on iTunes is DRM-free. That may have been true before 2009, but it is not true today. In 2007 Steve Jobs wrote an open letter about Apple's use of DRM and announced they would stop doing it, and in 2009 they had signed all of the necessary agreements with publishers to make all iTunes music DRM-free[2]. It is believed this was in reaction to an anti-trust lawsuit that started in 2005 (that eventually ruled in Apple's favour in 2014 partly because of their decision to no longer use DRM).
Since 2009, iTunes allows you to download any music you've ever purchased as a DRM-free mp3 (which is now patent-encumbered as well). Apple Music is an unfortunate reversal to that previous position (it uses DRM), and interestingly came out the year after the lawsuit was finished.
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/1v3dej/im_an_indie... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairPlay
There's a whole subreddit devoted to Stallman's correct predictions:
http://reddit.com/r/stallmanwasright
http://reddit.com/r/stallmanwasright
I think the biggest trouble, and the thing DRM-protected content producers have latched on to, is that the vast majority of our population will follow the path of least resistance. If it's easier for the average consumer to purchase an eBook on their Kindle than it is for them to find and purchase the same physical book in a store, they will often do so irregardless of any difference in value, perceived or otherwise.
By making the DRM-protected purchase the easiest, most frictionless method of initial acquisition, consumers are encouraged (often without realizing the risks) to buy DRM protected content, simply by being presented with an opportunity to do so.
I think the only thing we can really do to solve this problem is what we've been doing: educate our fellows, shout it from the rooftops, and work to make consumers aware of the rights they're giving up when they purchase content protected by DRM.
By making the DRM-protected purchase the easiest, most frictionless method of initial acquisition, consumers are encouraged (often without realizing the risks) to buy DRM protected content, simply by being presented with an opportunity to do so.
I think the only thing we can really do to solve this problem is what we've been doing: educate our fellows, shout it from the rooftops, and work to make consumers aware of the rights they're giving up when they purchase content protected by DRM.
That would mean that even the concept of a library would be illegal, right?
A neighborhood library lending books out to people, under this DRM-mentality scheme, would be illegal, because everyone should have to buy their own copy of the books, not borrow from others.
How did the libraries get by this? Do they agree with the publisher to pay a premium price for the book, seeing as they'll lend it out? Or were the publishers OK with this model because it meant more exposure of their content to users, who may in turn want to own their own copy?
A neighborhood library lending books out to people, under this DRM-mentality scheme, would be illegal, because everyone should have to buy their own copy of the books, not borrow from others.
How did the libraries get by this? Do they agree with the publisher to pay a premium price for the book, seeing as they'll lend it out? Or were the publishers OK with this model because it meant more exposure of their content to users, who may in turn want to own their own copy?
> How did the libraries get by this?
I think the answer is, libraries predate publishing industry. They existed much longer than print. Governments worldwide managed to secure the role of libraries while publishers were still figuring out their business model. OTOH, audio and video recording, and all the digital media, popped up when publishers already knew how to make money with creative works - hence they managed to secure their moat quicker than society could respond.
I think the answer is, libraries predate publishing industry. They existed much longer than print. Governments worldwide managed to secure the role of libraries while publishers were still figuring out their business model. OTOH, audio and video recording, and all the digital media, popped up when publishers already knew how to make money with creative works - hence they managed to secure their moat quicker than society could respond.
You say you can do whatever you want with a physical book, but you cannot - you are still restricted by the state from making copies of that book. You cannot take passages from that book and reuse them as your own, unless given permission by the author.
It is still not wholly your own property. It depends on the mires of the draconian copyright system, but there are things I can buy and then duplicate - if I buy a generic pill of a drug, I am fully within my right to use that pill to produce more pills like it, and nobody can sue me for infringing their IP.
Probably the scariest thing is that probably none of us can even reasonably conceive of how the world would be without this spectre hanging over everything. It influences our brain development extraordinarily fundamentally to contextualize that nothing we interact with is truly our own to learn from, because someone else almost always owns the idea behind it.
It is still not wholly your own property. It depends on the mires of the draconian copyright system, but there are things I can buy and then duplicate - if I buy a generic pill of a drug, I am fully within my right to use that pill to produce more pills like it, and nobody can sue me for infringing their IP.
Probably the scariest thing is that probably none of us can even reasonably conceive of how the world would be without this spectre hanging over everything. It influences our brain development extraordinarily fundamentally to contextualize that nothing we interact with is truly our own to learn from, because someone else almost always owns the idea behind it.
"you are still restricted by the state from making copies of that book"
Is that true or can you just not sell the copies?
"You cannot take passages from that book and reuse them as your own, unless given permission by the author."
Again, pretty sure that's only when selling things.
Is that true or can you just not sell the copies?
"You cannot take passages from that book and reuse them as your own, unless given permission by the author."
Again, pretty sure that's only when selling things.
It depends on where you are. In the US, some activities like this might fall under fair use, and therefore be legal. In much of the rest of the first world, the ways in which you can copy or share a work under copyright are specifically listed in the laws, and the mere act of making the copy might itself be an infringement. However, also in those places outside the US, non-commercial infringement is typically a civil matter and you'd only be on the hook for actual damages, which might be zero or close to it in the cases you described anyway.
[deleted]
>And the really weird part is that while the propaganda puts it as "protecting property", it really has exactly the opposite effect.
I think the comparison is entirely fitting if you remember that in this model you (the consumer) don't own the property and therefore DRM is not about protecting your rights either.
Viewed from the perspective of a non-owner, the effects of DRM look quite similar to the effects of physical property protection.
People are working on fields, in factories and in offices they don't own, with equivalent they don't own and produce things they don't own. They live in space they don't own and increasingly use transportation they don't own. I don't find it hard to imagine at all they'll also consume entertainment and knowledge they don't own.
Continuing the private home ownership example, the landlords would certainly see it as a bold defense of (their) property.
I think the comparison is entirely fitting if you remember that in this model you (the consumer) don't own the property and therefore DRM is not about protecting your rights either.
Viewed from the perspective of a non-owner, the effects of DRM look quite similar to the effects of physical property protection.
People are working on fields, in factories and in offices they don't own, with equivalent they don't own and produce things they don't own. They live in space they don't own and increasingly use transportation they don't own. I don't find it hard to imagine at all they'll also consume entertainment and knowledge they don't own.
Continuing the private home ownership example, the landlords would certainly see it as a bold defense of (their) property.
A better analogy would be to landlords rights vs. renters rights. DRM sets conceptually equivalent restrictions on protected media as leases set on rented property.
The difference, of course, is that it is very hard/impossible to break the restrictions set by DRM, whereas the restrictions set by leases are hard to enforce.
The problem that I see is that the language around DRM needs to change - you aren't buying that Kindle book, you are renting it from Amazon under a digitally-enforced lease.
So DRM is protecting property - it's just not protecting consumers' property, since they effectively don't actually own the media in the first place.
The difference, of course, is that it is very hard/impossible to break the restrictions set by DRM, whereas the restrictions set by leases are hard to enforce.
The problem that I see is that the language around DRM needs to change - you aren't buying that Kindle book, you are renting it from Amazon under a digitally-enforced lease.
So DRM is protecting property - it's just not protecting consumers' property, since they effectively don't actually own the media in the first place.
I disagree with your premise, which makes the error pointed out in above posts -- accepting the idea of "intellectual property" as though it were analogous to physical property.
But the reality is that there is no such thing as "owning" a copyrightable work of expression like Bob Dylan's lyrics. Instead, some people have temporary legal control over who may copy those lyrics and for what purpose. There is no moral or legal sense in which someone else "owns" those words on the page in front of me and I am not in any way "leasing" or "borrowing" the words. However, they may still try to restrict what I can do with those words.
So DRM is about technologically limiting others' rights, usually in some way above and beyond legal limitations. For example, if you buy a DVD, you legally have the right to make copies for personal use, or e.g. use 30 seconds of footage in your own work of art. But DRM may prevent you from exercising those rights.
However, I completely agree that it is misleading of companies to use the word "buy" when what you're acquiring remains under their control, not yours.
But the reality is that there is no such thing as "owning" a copyrightable work of expression like Bob Dylan's lyrics. Instead, some people have temporary legal control over who may copy those lyrics and for what purpose. There is no moral or legal sense in which someone else "owns" those words on the page in front of me and I am not in any way "leasing" or "borrowing" the words. However, they may still try to restrict what I can do with those words.
So DRM is about technologically limiting others' rights, usually in some way above and beyond legal limitations. For example, if you buy a DVD, you legally have the right to make copies for personal use, or e.g. use 30 seconds of footage in your own work of art. But DRM may prevent you from exercising those rights.
However, I completely agree that it is misleading of companies to use the word "buy" when what you're acquiring remains under their control, not yours.
Yeah, "ownership" isn't really what's at stake here. I guess, "consumption" would be a better term? DRM limits the ways in which consumers' can consume media - specifically, it enforces copyright.
I think we are on the same page about the questionable moral standing of copyright for digital artifacts.
I think we are on the same page about the questionable moral standing of copyright for digital artifacts.
> DRM limits the ways in which consumers' can consume media - specifically, it enforces copyright.
No, it doesn't. Copyright has concepts such as fair use. DRM does not enforce fair use.
No, it doesn't. Copyright has concepts such as fair use. DRM does not enforce fair use.
Put simply, DRM is a publisher's mechanism to restrict the use of a digital good in whatever way they like, which usually includes enforcing a subset of copyright laws that's beneficial to the publisher.
> DRM sets conceptually equivalent restrictions on protected media as leases set on rented property.
Not even remotely.
At best, copyright law sets conceptually equivalent restrictions on licensed works as leases set on rented property.
DRM sets conceptually equivalent restrictions on infested media as a gun-wielding robot that's installed in rented property with cameras in every corner that feed into the robot and with all of that remote-controlled by the landlord would set restrictions on your use of the rented property. Oh, and also, it's a criminal offense to try to do anything that would hinder the robot in doing its job.
> So DRM is protecting property
Just as a ban on private home ownership would be protecting property, yes. But not of the people that the propaganda is directed at.
Not even remotely.
At best, copyright law sets conceptually equivalent restrictions on licensed works as leases set on rented property.
DRM sets conceptually equivalent restrictions on infested media as a gun-wielding robot that's installed in rented property with cameras in every corner that feed into the robot and with all of that remote-controlled by the landlord would set restrictions on your use of the rented property. Oh, and also, it's a criminal offense to try to do anything that would hinder the robot in doing its job.
> So DRM is protecting property
Just as a ban on private home ownership would be protecting property, yes. But not of the people that the propaganda is directed at.
Hyperbole isn't helpful. DRM is simply the mechanization of the already-existing social relations. The coercion was already there, it's just automated now.
No, it is not, that is exactly the point. There are tons of use cases that would be totally unenforcable legally, but are constantly being enforced through DRM nonetheless.
Conceivably, but 'what would be enforceable legally' is often a function of practicality and transaction costs - that is, there are many infringements that publishers would ideally like to prevent, but don't bother because of the impracticality of doing so. Nobody tries to collect royalties from a street musician banging out Beatles tunes on a guitar, for example.
I've gotta say that 10 years on HN has taught me not to trust the general opinions of hackers on legal matters and copyright especially, because few of them are interested in familiarizing themselves with the history and economic developments of the subject, which makes discussion about it almost impossible.
In other words, you might be surprised at what would be enforceable legally if all cases could be fully worked out; it would likely be better than you expected in some regards and worse in others. DRM enforcement isn't isomorphic to legal enforceability, but it's a reasonably good approximation.
I am not arguing in defense of the copyright system we have, which I would like to drastically change. I'm just saying that I think you're underestimating the legal complexities. This isn't your fault; I feel our legal institutions are failing partly because they have become so ridiculously complex and impenetrable to most people.
I've gotta say that 10 years on HN has taught me not to trust the general opinions of hackers on legal matters and copyright especially, because few of them are interested in familiarizing themselves with the history and economic developments of the subject, which makes discussion about it almost impossible.
In other words, you might be surprised at what would be enforceable legally if all cases could be fully worked out; it would likely be better than you expected in some regards and worse in others. DRM enforcement isn't isomorphic to legal enforceability, but it's a reasonably good approximation.
I am not arguing in defense of the copyright system we have, which I would like to drastically change. I'm just saying that I think you're underestimating the legal complexities. This isn't your fault; I feel our legal institutions are failing partly because they have become so ridiculously complex and impenetrable to most people.
> Conceivably, but 'what would be enforceable legally' is often a function of practicality and transaction costs
I actually meant legally, not practically, that's why I wrote "legally". As in, you could not convince a judge to decide in your favour.
> DRM enforcement isn't isomorphic to legal enforceability, but it's a reasonably good approximation.
Nope, it's absolutely not.
How would you legally prevent someone from diagnosing and fixing their own tractor if there were no DRM to do it for you?
I actually meant legally, not practically, that's why I wrote "legally". As in, you could not convince a judge to decide in your favour.
> DRM enforcement isn't isomorphic to legal enforceability, but it's a reasonably good approximation.
Nope, it's absolutely not.
How would you legally prevent someone from diagnosing and fixing their own tractor if there were no DRM to do it for you?
By contract, which happens all the time. It doesn't seem like you're interested in having a discussion so much as an argument, so have a nice day.
So, how would you force someone to agree to that contract after you sold them the tractor?
Indeed it would, for the parties that would argue this.
In business, property rights seem to be seen primarily, if not only, as a money-making asset - if you own something then you can license it and thus make money from it.
It works well for media companies, which is why I feel their primary business is moving property rights and licenses around, with any end-user benefit being a side effect.
In business, property rights seem to be seen primarily, if not only, as a money-making asset - if you own something then you can license it and thus make money from it.
It works well for media companies, which is why I feel their primary business is moving property rights and licenses around, with any end-user benefit being a side effect.
Yeah, sure ... but the weird part is that they use that in their propaganda, and successfully so, it seems. Totally would make sense in their internal communication on the matter of course.
That's all true, but these analyses always seem to skate over the fact that the copyright system exists because without it it's hard for authors to get paid. Don't talk to me about a world free of intellectual property rights unless you can also offer practical suggestions for what creative people are supposed to live on while they're working. Regrettably, the cult of celebrity has blinded people to the fact that cultural work requires as much time and effort as any other variety.
A good place to start the analysis would be an assumption that all software is freely copyable, so suddenly nobody wants to pay for any of it other than for bespoke purposes. Consider how projects like NumPy and so on are only now getting funding after becoming so widely used that people are dependent on them and it takes a threat to retire from further work on it to make people put their hands in their pockets.
If you're against copyright, then you need to be for something like a basic income and universal service availability, to create the conditions in which creativity has an opportunity to flourish free of market pressures. Otherwise you're just saying you want media to be free as in beer. The biggest barrier to creativity is not the inability to iterate on existing work. People already do that, it's fun and some of the results are great, but innovation is more complex than that.
A good place to start the analysis would be an assumption that all software is freely copyable, so suddenly nobody wants to pay for any of it other than for bespoke purposes. Consider how projects like NumPy and so on are only now getting funding after becoming so widely used that people are dependent on them and it takes a threat to retire from further work on it to make people put their hands in their pockets.
If you're against copyright, then you need to be for something like a basic income and universal service availability, to create the conditions in which creativity has an opportunity to flourish free of market pressures. Otherwise you're just saying you want media to be free as in beer. The biggest barrier to creativity is not the inability to iterate on existing work. People already do that, it's fun and some of the results are great, but innovation is more complex than that.
> That's all true, but these analyses always seem to skate over the fact that the copyright system exists because without it it's hard for authors to get paid.
What made you think that I objected to copyright?
What made you think that I objected to copyright?
Sorry, that statement wasn't directed at you specifically but the recurring arguments that crop up around this topic on HN.
I was going to write a comment and walk through the full history of copyright, but I realised that it would be a very good blog post (which I'll get around to writing this week). RMS has talked about this in the past, but I believe there's a lot more interesting stuff in the history of copyright that does change how you think about modern copyright law.
>That word, "property", gives the opposite connotations of "copyright"--permanent rightful ownership vs a temporary grant of monopoly on an idea.
I'd point out that generally copyright protects only executions of an idea, not the idea itself. This is pretty much on what for example the existence of GNU and Linux hinge on; they implement the idea of UNIX despite AT&T claiming copyright on UNIX.
Patents, on the other hand, do extend to ideas, and are completely different story.
I'd point out that generally copyright protects only executions of an idea, not the idea itself. This is pretty much on what for example the existence of GNU and Linux hinge on; they implement the idea of UNIX despite AT&T claiming copyright on UNIX.
Patents, on the other hand, do extend to ideas, and are completely different story.
> I would say that DRM is merely an inevitable outgrowth of our society's enshrinement and worship of the idea of "intellectual property".
If intellectual property rights cease to exist, then there's no longer any legal basis to enforce the GPL and similar licenses and the Free Software ecosystem would collapse. Are you sure you want that?
EDIT: Replaced "open source" with "Free Software". My thanks to other posters for the correction. Yes, BSD-style open source would still survive.
If intellectual property rights cease to exist, then there's no longer any legal basis to enforce the GPL and similar licenses and the Free Software ecosystem would collapse. Are you sure you want that?
EDIT: Replaced "open source" with "Free Software". My thanks to other posters for the correction. Yes, BSD-style open source would still survive.
If intellectual property rights ceased to exist, we wouldn't have a need for the GPL, wouldn't we?
I've been giving some thought about this recently. I'd say that, at least for software, we'd still need the GPL and, therefore, copyright. Which clashes a bit with my anti-copyright sentiments, but whatever.
Why is this? Because software is different from literature and visual arts. In a copyright-free world, once you copy a work of literature you have the whole work at your disposal to copy, modify and redistribute however you see fit. For music it's a bit different because you may need to reverse-engineer the music sheet, for example, but there's a lot you can do with just the recording of a piece of music.
With software, the only thing you could do is copying it, or try and modify the binary, because you still don't have the source code. Sure, you can reverse-engineer it (which is already legal in some situations in certain jurisdictions), but the software wouldn't be free in today's understanding of what many consider free software (i.e., software that respects the four freedoms outlined by the fsf). This means, you get your copy of, e.g., AutoCAD, but it would still be hard for you to modify it, because, despite the absence of copyright, you'd still have no way of getting source code to work on (unless someone leaks it).
So I'd say that, at least, absence of copyright wouldn't help with software. It will just create a situation where those who want to incorporate your source code into their products without publishing their source code will be able to do just that, and you'd have no recourse.
Why is this? Because software is different from literature and visual arts. In a copyright-free world, once you copy a work of literature you have the whole work at your disposal to copy, modify and redistribute however you see fit. For music it's a bit different because you may need to reverse-engineer the music sheet, for example, but there's a lot you can do with just the recording of a piece of music.
With software, the only thing you could do is copying it, or try and modify the binary, because you still don't have the source code. Sure, you can reverse-engineer it (which is already legal in some situations in certain jurisdictions), but the software wouldn't be free in today's understanding of what many consider free software (i.e., software that respects the four freedoms outlined by the fsf). This means, you get your copy of, e.g., AutoCAD, but it would still be hard for you to modify it, because, despite the absence of copyright, you'd still have no way of getting source code to work on (unless someone leaks it).
So I'd say that, at least, absence of copyright wouldn't help with software. It will just create a situation where those who want to incorporate your source code into their products without publishing their source code will be able to do just that, and you'd have no recourse.
Great response! I didn't think about that!
Them make it illegal to sell software without publishing the source code.
Without copyright, this concept actually has traditional grounding in right to repair laws. Not distributing the source code of software is the exact same battle that has been fought for decades between machine manufacturers trying to deny access to documentation about how their machines work. You can have a right to repair legal system wholly independent of copyright.
This is an interesting analysis of software freedom without copyright http://culturalliberty.org/blog/index.php?id=278
Basically GPL would not be needed to restore a freedom which would no longer be restricted.
Copyleft virality requires IP enforcement. Doing away with IP doesn't necessarily imply a world where everyone wants to share publicly
In practical terms, copyright-free software would be "viral": you would be free to redistribute under the same (lack of) terms that you received the software under. There would be no mechanism for things like tying source to binaries or the anti-Tivoization terms, but those aren't defining aspects of copyleft.
I'm not sure what "share publicly" has to do with anything. GPL doesn't apply until you do share the software, and even then doesn't require you to do anything publicly.
I'm not sure what "share publicly" has to do with anything. GPL doesn't apply until you do share the software, and even then doesn't require you to do anything publicly.
Would there even still be a need for it? Releasing code without the approval of your managers would stop being a crime, and it's not like most people are only releasing free software because of licenses in the first place.
Businesses could prevent that by requiring employees to agree to a separate, permanent contract not to release any code as part of the conditions for being hired.
And they could all refuse to sign, or demand a much higher salary, due the high risk of that contract easily being broken by accident. 1 stolen unencrypted laptop, or source control checkout over an unencrypted channel, is all it would take.
And they could all refuse to sign, or demand a much higher salary
Right. And you can already refuse to accept a job if all the code you produce isn't open sourced. Good luck with that on most companies, though.
Right. And you can already refuse to accept a job if all the code you produce isn't open sourced. Good luck with that on most companies, though.
That isn't any different from the current situation.
It is different because it's currently a crime by default. If someone wants to add to my contract that saying "riboflavin" out loud can get me fired and sued for damages, I'm gonna want a ton of extra money to cover the ubsurd risk.
Free software might collapse, but open source certainly would not especially since so much of it is under MIT and similar licenses which already allow anyone to do pretty much whatever with that code.
Free software would not go anywhere. The only difference is, without a right to repair law for software in a post-IP world, people writing software may or may not choose to withhold source code. But the trick is anyone who ever gets that source code can (unless under an NDA or contract not to) distribute it all they want. And the receivers of software will be able to distribute it however they want. The profit motive of artificial scarcity goes away, and if you try to use your holding of the source hostage as a way to keep users dependent on you all it takes is one leak to end your monopoly.
That being said, right to repair goes hand in hand with the abolition of IP to resolve these edge cases. The problem of not providing the manual to your distributed invention goes far beyond just intellectual property, and is largely an independent issue, but good right to repair legislation is all encompassing, and is a consumer protection that naturally fits with IP-less software as well.
That being said, right to repair goes hand in hand with the abolition of IP to resolve these edge cases. The problem of not providing the manual to your distributed invention goes far beyond just intellectual property, and is largely an independent issue, but good right to repair legislation is all encompassing, and is a consumer protection that naturally fits with IP-less software as well.
> ...all it takes is one leak to end your monopoly
I don't know about that. Most significant software packages require ongoing maintenance (bug fixes, security patches, compatibility with other software) and add new features over time. A one-time leak certainly would be damaging but not necessarily fatal since most businesses want to have assured support and upgrades.
I don't know about that. Most significant software packages require ongoing maintenance (bug fixes, security patches, compatibility with other software) and add new features over time. A one-time leak certainly would be damaging but not necessarily fatal since most businesses want to have assured support and upgrades.
The difference is that before the leak only one entity could provide the support.
After the leak, anyone can.
Prices would adapt to the reality, and the original vendor would have a hard time demanding the rates they are used to when suddenly faced with competition. Especially competition that kept changes open, which instills more confidence in consumers of the software.
After the leak, anyone can.
Prices would adapt to the reality, and the original vendor would have a hard time demanding the rates they are used to when suddenly faced with competition. Especially competition that kept changes open, which instills more confidence in consumers of the software.
> most businesses want to have assured support and upgrades.
And not to get sued into the ground.
And not to get sued into the ground.
Yeah, obviously, the whole open source ecosystem would collapse because BSD licensed software could now also incorporate GPL code into their code base ... WAT?
Just don't use it, today it is entirely within your power not to use DRM. If you want it to stay that way, you'll have to be the demand you wish to see in the world.
Lately, I wanted to buy an eBook. I usually buy prints, but this time I needed it as soon as possible.
Upon searching, every book store told me, I would need to install some Adobe stuff on my computer to read the file. I am neither a fan of Adobe nor of the idea of being locked in to an application to view a book. After realizing that there is no other digital way, I simply bought the printed version and waited the two days it took to ship.
It's a very frustrating situation for someone who just wants to read something.
Upon searching, every book store told me, I would need to install some Adobe stuff on my computer to read the file. I am neither a fan of Adobe nor of the idea of being locked in to an application to view a book. After realizing that there is no other digital way, I simply bought the printed version and waited the two days it took to ship.
It's a very frustrating situation for someone who just wants to read something.
I was in the same position a few months ago, and there was no printed version. My solution: pay for the damn book, use the required Adobe product to be able to unlock it, use a tool to create a DRM-free pdf (IIRC it was Calibre), and finally unistalling the Adobe product. I wish I didn't have to give money to DRM sellers, but in this particular choice I had no option.
Apparently this makes me a pirate, despite having paid for the product and not having any intention of releasing it.
Apparently this makes me a pirate, despite having paid for the product and not having any intention of releasing it.
That's actually the best case for DRM, since Adobe's has been cracked for ages.
Just buy the book, do whatever Adobe wants, then run DeDRM [0] on it and enjoy your DRM free ePub.
[0]: https://apprenticealf.wordpress.com/
Just buy the book, do whatever Adobe wants, then run DeDRM [0] on it and enjoy your DRM free ePub.
[0]: https://apprenticealf.wordpress.com/
Did you consider pirating the e-book?
To check the ethical box, I would've just used the pirated e-book version immediately and ordered a hard-copy.
To check the ethical box, I would've just used the pirated e-book version immediately and ordered a hard-copy.
Yes, I considered it out of my frustration, but I always try to give back for good work.
Maybe just send a tip to the authors directly?
Reading Kindle books does not require any Adobe stuff. You can just read them on your browser, or via a Kindle app on your PC/device. Sure, it is still DRMd, but at least the UX on the happy path is halfway decent.
My option would be to buy it on Apple's iBooks. My tech setup is Apple-only, so that would be okay, even though there's DRM. Same story as with Amazon basically.
I basically have to choose my golden cage. That's frustrating.
I basically have to choose my golden cage. That's frustrating.
Yeah that's how it works I had to do that when I rented an eBook from the library. DRM removal tools are a godsend.
My only concern with DRM in browser is that, as far as I understand the technology, any website can put a small piece of arbitrary DRM content and your browser will send information to that website uniq to your device, and your device will be tracked by DRM providers and probably also by that website.
Firefox gives you the option to disable DRM in the settings. Chrome also has it but it is buried deeply in advanced settings. Safari does not seem to have it at all.
Firefox gives you the option to disable DRM in the settings. Chrome also has it but it is buried deeply in advanced settings. Safari does not seem to have it at all.
I think I found this as "Protected Content" in the Chrome advanced settings. (Searching for "DRM" didn't work.)
I disagree with the characterization of all this media as "culture." They're entertainment products that exist for the sole purpose of generating a profit.
Everything is culture.
But yeah, the stuff produced by copyright mafia/Big Entertainment/Hollywood/whatever is far, far from the only culture that exists.
A lot of culture is happening on DRM-free places like YouTube, Vimeo, SoundCloud, Bandcamp, DeviantART, Tumblr, itch.io, etc.
Especially YouTube. It's huge. And it's full of people who download other videos and remix them in interesting ways.
But yeah, the stuff produced by copyright mafia/Big Entertainment/Hollywood/whatever is far, far from the only culture that exists.
A lot of culture is happening on DRM-free places like YouTube, Vimeo, SoundCloud, Bandcamp, DeviantART, Tumblr, itch.io, etc.
Especially YouTube. It's huge. And it's full of people who download other videos and remix them in interesting ways.
Shakespeare didn't write all those plays for free.
If a modern day Shakespeare wants to create "culture," they can license their works appropriately. But for the most part the stuff that people want to copy are entertainment products.
I think the point he was trying to make is that you don't start out with culture. You start out with profit generating entertainment products, and then via the market bringing lots of people to this enterprise and survivor bias, you end up with "culture".
And as such they are at the very least displacing "culture" to some degree, and the argument thus still applies?
Welcome to your modern culture, which is centered around neoliberal consumerism.
Some background: I developed a software binary sandbox, in the 90's; patent cited 500+ times ... mostly by developers of DRM. Now, I am working on an open source project.
IMO, DRM extends a presumption of scarcity. Hunters share their meat, whereas farmers guard their harvest. For the hunter, the kill is a short term abundance of value; if it isn't shared, it will spoil. For the farmer, the harvest is a long term store of value. Scavengers exploit the asymmetry of effort in which to obtain that value.
Once value became easy to copy, the symmetry of effort has shifted. As a result, culture is shifting with it. Freely copied recorded music shifted the value back to live concerts. Back to a short term abundance of value. When was the last time you posted on Twitter or FB? These are freshly hunted moments. Wait too long and that muse will spoil.
IMO, DRM extends a presumption of scarcity. Hunters share their meat, whereas farmers guard their harvest. For the hunter, the kill is a short term abundance of value; if it isn't shared, it will spoil. For the farmer, the harvest is a long term store of value. Scavengers exploit the asymmetry of effort in which to obtain that value.
Once value became easy to copy, the symmetry of effort has shifted. As a result, culture is shifting with it. Freely copied recorded music shifted the value back to live concerts. Back to a short term abundance of value. When was the last time you posted on Twitter or FB? These are freshly hunted moments. Wait too long and that muse will spoil.
There is no presumption of scarcity, because scarcity is a real phenomenon.
There is a vast qualitative difference between the output of ten thousand amateurs and one highly trained and exceptionally talented artist (working in whatever medium.)
This an immensely unfashionable idea. But the real problem with DRM isn't that it does or does not enable copying, but that it presupposes that artistic output is a commodity that can be copied.
In fact artistic output - considered as the cultural influence of an entire career, and not as a series of copyable files or performances - is not fungible.
Not all content creators are equal. If you want quality as opposed to quantity, you need to set up a feedback function that makes some effort to reward and support quality, based on a more sophisticated metric than a lowest-common-denominator unit sales count in a mass market.
This is even more true of science. Ten thousand PhDs do not add up to one Newton or Einstein.
And politics. Ten thousand mediocre politicians do not add up to one Nelson Mandela or Gandhi.
By the time everyone is having the DRM or no-DRM argument they've already missed the point - which is that commodifying cultural output as "content" for industrial distribution mechanisms (including live tours) is to misunderstand how culture propagates and evolves.
And if you can't invent a system that finds and rewards talent - without reducing every transaction to the vapid foolishness of markets - then your culture, science, politics, art, and general joy in invention will stagnate and eventually disappear.
DRM is barely a footnote here. It's nowhere close to being the main problem.
There is a vast qualitative difference between the output of ten thousand amateurs and one highly trained and exceptionally talented artist (working in whatever medium.)
This an immensely unfashionable idea. But the real problem with DRM isn't that it does or does not enable copying, but that it presupposes that artistic output is a commodity that can be copied.
In fact artistic output - considered as the cultural influence of an entire career, and not as a series of copyable files or performances - is not fungible.
Not all content creators are equal. If you want quality as opposed to quantity, you need to set up a feedback function that makes some effort to reward and support quality, based on a more sophisticated metric than a lowest-common-denominator unit sales count in a mass market.
This is even more true of science. Ten thousand PhDs do not add up to one Newton or Einstein.
And politics. Ten thousand mediocre politicians do not add up to one Nelson Mandela or Gandhi.
By the time everyone is having the DRM or no-DRM argument they've already missed the point - which is that commodifying cultural output as "content" for industrial distribution mechanisms (including live tours) is to misunderstand how culture propagates and evolves.
And if you can't invent a system that finds and rewards talent - without reducing every transaction to the vapid foolishness of markets - then your culture, science, politics, art, and general joy in invention will stagnate and eventually disappear.
DRM is barely a footnote here. It's nowhere close to being the main problem.
Your entire comment boils down to repeating Sturgeon's Law over and over, which can be summarized as "ninety percent of everything is crap," which is to say, your comment is obnoxious and off-topic to the discussion of Digital Restrictions Management and its negative consequences (DRM only has negative consequences).
However, there is an idea there. HN user https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=maxxxxx made a very astute observation as to why so many "industries" (rich people that control companies) are so adamant about ramming DRM down everyone's throats:
Copyright and IP (and probably real estate) are pretty much the only way for capitalists to make money the more things like internet, 3D printing, AI, robotics and so on are available to the masses. To me it's the only way to keep the current power structures intact so for a lot of powerful people copyright laws are probably the most important laws. They don't need the state for personal protection (they can pay for security guards instead of police) but they need the state for protecting their livelihood.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12514611
The system you propose to invent is redistribution of wealth and socialism: free education for those that want to advance their abilities, and universal basic income to allow them the time to express those abilities. Liberating knowledge from rent-seeking should be the prerogative of everyone that wants to improve the human condition and advance humanity.
However, there is an idea there. HN user https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=maxxxxx made a very astute observation as to why so many "industries" (rich people that control companies) are so adamant about ramming DRM down everyone's throats:
Copyright and IP (and probably real estate) are pretty much the only way for capitalists to make money the more things like internet, 3D printing, AI, robotics and so on are available to the masses. To me it's the only way to keep the current power structures intact so for a lot of powerful people copyright laws are probably the most important laws. They don't need the state for personal protection (they can pay for security guards instead of police) but they need the state for protecting their livelihood.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12514611
The system you propose to invent is redistribution of wealth and socialism: free education for those that want to advance their abilities, and universal basic income to allow them the time to express those abilities. Liberating knowledge from rent-seeking should be the prerogative of everyone that wants to improve the human condition and advance humanity.
It's not that 90% is crap, it's that there's inherently expensive classes of content that won't be produced without a revenue stream. Pewdiepie could still do his thing on a shoestring, but Star Wars could not be produced.
> Copyright and IP (and probably real estate) are pretty much the only way for capitalists to make money the more things like internet, 3D printing, AI, robotics and so on are available to the masses
I tried to warn the capitalists, but they were too busy counting their $s from tracking you with AI and replacing your job with robots.
> Liberating knowledge from rent-seeking should be the prerogative of everyone that wants to improve the human condition and advance humanity.
A discussion of "knowledge" is important, but DRM is 99% about entertainment.
> Copyright and IP (and probably real estate) are pretty much the only way for capitalists to make money the more things like internet, 3D printing, AI, robotics and so on are available to the masses
I tried to warn the capitalists, but they were too busy counting their $s from tracking you with AI and replacing your job with robots.
> Liberating knowledge from rent-seeking should be the prerogative of everyone that wants to improve the human condition and advance humanity.
A discussion of "knowledge" is important, but DRM is 99% about entertainment.
And 100% about owning content after copyright expires. DMCA guarantees it.
It depends on which part of the process you attribute "scarcity" to. If I drink your beer, it is gone; I have deprived you of it. If you send me a song you have enjoyed, you still have it, and no-one is deprived of anything.
Scarcity on the production side is different and real, but I'm more optimistic. The primary problem seems to be allowing high quality creators to survive full time.
Increasingly, it seems to me that people do want to reward other people for stuff that they care about. To return to the song sharing example, I've now been exposed to a creator I might care about, and decide to support in some way.
However, this is very different to people wanting to pay rights-holders groups (in money, surveillance capabilities, or attention) for stuff that they're not sure if they care about yet.
The brightest future I can imagine involves platforms which facilitate transactions (designed by the creator) and discovery, while having no stake in the IP itself. And it seems possible.
Scarcity on the production side is different and real, but I'm more optimistic. The primary problem seems to be allowing high quality creators to survive full time.
Increasingly, it seems to me that people do want to reward other people for stuff that they care about. To return to the song sharing example, I've now been exposed to a creator I might care about, and decide to support in some way.
However, this is very different to people wanting to pay rights-holders groups (in money, surveillance capabilities, or attention) for stuff that they're not sure if they care about yet.
The brightest future I can imagine involves platforms which facilitate transactions (designed by the creator) and discovery, while having no stake in the IP itself. And it seems possible.
> But the real problem with DRM isn't that it does or does not enable copying, but that it presupposes that artistic output is a commodity that can be copied.
But does it? I thought one of the bigger arguments studios use is that art is not a commodity, hence licensing (enforced by DRM) and copyrights and please pay us.
> This is even more true of science. Ten thousand PhDs do not add up to one Newton or Einstein.
> And politics. Ten thousand mediocre politicians do not add up to one Nelson Mandela or Gandhi.
I'm less and less convinced of that. "Breakthrough discoveries" in sciences seem to be very incremental steps. That's, I think, the reason so many of those achievements were made simultaneously by different people in different parts of the world. When scientific knowledge reaches a given level, some discoveries become ripe for the taking, and they get plucked by whichever smart guy manages to figure it out first. I suspect the similar may be true of politics - even though history lessons tend to focus on individuals, it seems to me that big events were always much more about the environment than any individual decision.
That is to say, if anything, science is much bigger a commodity than creative arts - by very virtue of being constrained by reality. All practically useful maps of the same territory will look alike, after all.
> DRM is barely a footnote here. It's nowhere close to being the main problem.
I'm having trouble seeing what is the main problem you think about. If I try to do a root cause analysis of DRM, I always end up concluding the main problem is that content creators have to create content for a living - i.e. if creative work were to be entirely decoupled from monetary interests, more people would have access to more and better cultural works.
But does it? I thought one of the bigger arguments studios use is that art is not a commodity, hence licensing (enforced by DRM) and copyrights and please pay us.
> This is even more true of science. Ten thousand PhDs do not add up to one Newton or Einstein.
> And politics. Ten thousand mediocre politicians do not add up to one Nelson Mandela or Gandhi.
I'm less and less convinced of that. "Breakthrough discoveries" in sciences seem to be very incremental steps. That's, I think, the reason so many of those achievements were made simultaneously by different people in different parts of the world. When scientific knowledge reaches a given level, some discoveries become ripe for the taking, and they get plucked by whichever smart guy manages to figure it out first. I suspect the similar may be true of politics - even though history lessons tend to focus on individuals, it seems to me that big events were always much more about the environment than any individual decision.
That is to say, if anything, science is much bigger a commodity than creative arts - by very virtue of being constrained by reality. All practically useful maps of the same territory will look alike, after all.
> DRM is barely a footnote here. It's nowhere close to being the main problem.
I'm having trouble seeing what is the main problem you think about. If I try to do a root cause analysis of DRM, I always end up concluding the main problem is that content creators have to create content for a living - i.e. if creative work were to be entirely decoupled from monetary interests, more people would have access to more and better cultural works.
Considering your views, how would you describe the great rises of (European) culture e.g. in 15-17th centuries? What kind of system collected and rewarded talents like Michelangelo or Mozart? (Both made numerous gigs.)
If you only used fingerprinting/watermarking instead of DRM, you could very well imagine an alternate model where creators are rewarded, and can find an audience a bit better, piracy is kept to a minimum, and culture is better off. There will still be sites like solarmovie, popcorntime, and perhaps some rental revenue will be lost because it will be easier to watch my neighbor or friends copy that he downloaded and walked over to my place with, but no one will be able to share it widely on youtube with anyone's fingerprint/watermark. The upside to culture? Anyone is free to edit/mix/use/peruse their fingerprinted/watermarked copy that they bought/rented. Unlike the consume-only model of the current Netflix/Amazon/Hulu/CBS/etc..
This is a long-term choice that I think both creators and consumers can make, but it probably won't happen as long as AT&T can make money off selling 4K copies of all Time Warner movies again, and as long as Disney never lets the copyright on Mickey Mouse expire. Copyright also has an important part to play in culture.
This is a long-term choice that I think both creators and consumers can make, but it probably won't happen as long as AT&T can make money off selling 4K copies of all Time Warner movies again, and as long as Disney never lets the copyright on Mickey Mouse expire. Copyright also has an important part to play in culture.
Patreon is an interesting model here. Not sure whether it rewards talent but I pay my creators because I want them to create more and I would suggest this will only happen if their creations find an audience. If that's not talent, I am not sure what is.
>it presupposes that artistic output is a commodity that can be copied.
In the Marxian sense, artistic output is a commodity, however every subsequent copy is a commodity with very little value, depending on the value of the copying machine etc.
In the Marxian sense, artistic output is a commodity, however every subsequent copy is a commodity with very little value, depending on the value of the copying machine etc.
> If you want quality as opposed to quantity, you need to set up a feedback function that makes some effort to reward and support quality, based on a more sophisticated metric than a lowest-common-denominator unit sales count in a mass market.
This only holds true if you start with the assumption that the output of those driven only by passion of the art is insufficient in either quantity or quality and must be supplemented with additional output driven by capitalism.
I know I don't know which is the "better" system, but I do believe a sincere discussion must be had along that spectrum ought to happen.
This only holds true if you start with the assumption that the output of those driven only by passion of the art is insufficient in either quantity or quality and must be supplemented with additional output driven by capitalism.
I know I don't know which is the "better" system, but I do believe a sincere discussion must be had along that spectrum ought to happen.
> the output of those driven only by passion of the art is insufficient in either quantity or quality and must be supplemented with additional output driven by capitalism
Isn't that obvious? "Passion for the art" is utterly incapable of creating something like a Pixar movie, which requires millions of dollars in compute costs.
This doesn't mean capitalism is the only funding source: maybe the government funds them, or crowdfunding, etc. But it should be obvious that modern appetites demand content that cannot be produced by a few passionate-but-broke individuals.
Isn't that obvious? "Passion for the art" is utterly incapable of creating something like a Pixar movie, which requires millions of dollars in compute costs.
This doesn't mean capitalism is the only funding source: maybe the government funds them, or crowdfunding, etc. But it should be obvious that modern appetites demand content that cannot be produced by a few passionate-but-broke individuals.
[deleted]
[deleted]
If this were true in media, Mickey Mouse wouldn't still be copyrighted. DRM is recent, very recent, compared to analog media. It seems like the industry binged on copyright a little too much and by the time digital distribution came around, instead of using it to develop new talent and audiences, they decided to lock everything down with DRM. Must protect our copyrights! Prevent theft! Nevermind that DRM is mostly an added cost for the consumer, in exchange for no benefit, and the profits all seem to flow upwards regardless.
Social media is much better, and the cultural pay-off is much better in that what I create isn't being locked down and is available through APIs. Have you followed a twitter hashtag recently? People are as creative as ever. This does have it's own challenges as we saw in the last election. No substitutes for media literacy and good content...
Social media is much better, and the cultural pay-off is much better in that what I create isn't being locked down and is available through APIs. Have you followed a twitter hashtag recently? People are as creative as ever. This does have it's own challenges as we saw in the last election. No substitutes for media literacy and good content...
> Freely copied recorded music shifted the value back to live concerts.
Overall, I get what you're saying and I don't disagree with the premise (though I'm ambivalent about the conclusion), but the word "shifted" doesn't usually mean "eradicated"--most live concerts net vanishingly little money and that's a real impact on creators. Whether that's a net societal good or not can be argued about, but "shifted", IMO, paints a misleading picture.
Overall, I get what you're saying and I don't disagree with the premise (though I'm ambivalent about the conclusion), but the word "shifted" doesn't usually mean "eradicated"--most live concerts net vanishingly little money and that's a real impact on creators. Whether that's a net societal good or not can be argued about, but "shifted", IMO, paints a misleading picture.
Live music exceeds the revenue of the top 2 music publishers, Universal and Sony, as per: http://variety.com/2017/music/features/live-nation-concert-b...
[Addendum] For a perspective on independent musicians, here's Steve Albini: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/nov/17/steve-albinis-...
[Addendum] For a perspective on independent musicians, here's Steve Albini: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/nov/17/steve-albinis-...
Most other distribution methods for those artists have also been shown to net vanishingly little money. If you can't make money with a live performance, you sure as heck aren't making any selling CDs through a record company.
Have you ever played live in a band?
Have your ever been selling music via a label, or via a service like iTunes or Bandcamp? How much, as a percent of sales, did you receive?
(Not rhetorical questions, I'm genuinely interested.)
(Not rhetorical questions, I'm genuinely interested.)
As a percent of which other sales exactly? If you mean selling merch and getting paid for the gigs, it's vanishingly small. At least for a band that does live performances.
The funny thing is, for a vast majority of bands there's almost no sense to sell their recorded music (in a digital form), only to give the fans the feeling of making a contribution.
The funny thing is, for a vast majority of bands there's almost no sense to sell their recorded music (in a digital form), only to give the fans the feeling of making a contribution.
This is just the tip of the leaf of the IP tree that is destroying culture.
Since the advent of permanent copyright there is no more commons. The commons stopped in 1923. Disney will continue to buy the US government into guaranteeing there is no common heritage of America for as long as they are able.
It will be interesting to see how, in a thousand years, (hopefully) scholars of the time will reflect on how systemic the damage was to American society to artificially constrain creativity so fundamentally and for so long. It is human nature to take your experiences and reinterpret them in new ways. That is how creativity is defined. But copyright and IP, especially in perpetuity, prevent that, all for what is claimed to be the protection of profits by the original creators, even for decades after the creators are dead.
Since the advent of permanent copyright there is no more commons. The commons stopped in 1923. Disney will continue to buy the US government into guaranteeing there is no common heritage of America for as long as they are able.
It will be interesting to see how, in a thousand years, (hopefully) scholars of the time will reflect on how systemic the damage was to American society to artificially constrain creativity so fundamentally and for so long. It is human nature to take your experiences and reinterpret them in new ways. That is how creativity is defined. But copyright and IP, especially in perpetuity, prevent that, all for what is claimed to be the protection of profits by the original creators, even for decades after the creators are dead.
The usual spiel about DRM is that you don't own what you "bought" but in the case of subscriptions and rentals, why would anyone think they have a right to ownership when they are clearly paying for access?
Why should I have a problem with paying Apple for DRM free music from iTunes and paying for a subscription to DRMd music for Apple Music?
I haven't pirated music since the iTunes Store opened in 2003. Even from 2003-2008 when it was DRM encumbered, there was a simple built in way to remove the DRM -- burn it to a CD and rip it.
I also don't have a problem paying to rent a movie from Apple/Amazon, but I would never "buy" a movie from Apple/Amazon with restrictive DRM. I also wouldn't have thought about buying a physical disk without an easy way to rip it to my Plex Server and use in the way I see fit.
Why should I have a problem with paying Apple for DRM free music from iTunes and paying for a subscription to DRMd music for Apple Music?
I haven't pirated music since the iTunes Store opened in 2003. Even from 2003-2008 when it was DRM encumbered, there was a simple built in way to remove the DRM -- burn it to a CD and rip it.
I also don't have a problem paying to rent a movie from Apple/Amazon, but I would never "buy" a movie from Apple/Amazon with restrictive DRM. I also wouldn't have thought about buying a physical disk without an easy way to rip it to my Plex Server and use in the way I see fit.
I suppose people in general are not yet used to have everything in their life be some kind of service. With DRM, the part of the issue is how quickly we went from ownership (buying paper books, or even music/video on physical media) to renting.
Personally, I'm not sure what to think about it. On the one hand, one could argue that everything becoming a service is a sign of a maturing society. On the other hand, it makes individuals less autonomous, and society more fragile. Currently I lean more towards thinking that service-oriented economy is a problem, and in particular that SaaS and DRM are cancer.
Personally, I'm not sure what to think about it. On the one hand, one could argue that everything becoming a service is a sign of a maturing society. On the other hand, it makes individuals less autonomous, and society more fragile. Currently I lean more towards thinking that service-oriented economy is a problem, and in particular that SaaS and DRM are cancer.
> it makes individuals less autonomous
Really, I think the problem is not so much the decreasing autonomy of the individual, but rather the increasing concentration of power. In a modern society, you are already massively dependent on other people, in a normal day you get into contact with the direct result of the work of thousands of people (as in: not just people who had the idea to bake a bread, but actually people who contributed to the specific bread that you are eating now), and I think that's perfectly fine. What is problematic is if a small group of individuals/companies get a massive amount of centralized control over a large part of the population.
Really, I think the problem is not so much the decreasing autonomy of the individual, but rather the increasing concentration of power. In a modern society, you are already massively dependent on other people, in a normal day you get into contact with the direct result of the work of thousands of people (as in: not just people who had the idea to bake a bread, but actually people who contributed to the specific bread that you are eating now), and I think that's perfectly fine. What is problematic is if a small group of individuals/companies get a massive amount of centralized control over a large part of the population.
Maybe. It seems like a parallel concern.
For example, if I get hold of a textbook about baking bread, and go to my farm to produce crops for the bread and then bake it myself, using only the things my soil provides for me, I'm still using the accumulated knowledge and experience of thousands of people. If I decide to buy the same bread from someone else, I'm adding more accumulated human touch into the mix. In this way, there's a difference between services of contemporary people and the sum of accumulated human experience I can access. The second one is additive, and I believe society progresses as fast as it can add to it. Here, DRM directly slows humanity down.
That said, I agree - we're not too autonomous anyway, and modern lifestyle is directly dependent on being plugged into the socioeconomic machine. Still, economy was meant for man, not man for the economy; I'm worrying about how much economic interests restrict us for no other reason than lining someone's pocket. Technology enables individuals to do cool ways, to build the world around themselves as they see fit, but then comes the business models that start restricting these abilities in order to squeeze more money out of people.
For example, if I get hold of a textbook about baking bread, and go to my farm to produce crops for the bread and then bake it myself, using only the things my soil provides for me, I'm still using the accumulated knowledge and experience of thousands of people. If I decide to buy the same bread from someone else, I'm adding more accumulated human touch into the mix. In this way, there's a difference between services of contemporary people and the sum of accumulated human experience I can access. The second one is additive, and I believe society progresses as fast as it can add to it. Here, DRM directly slows humanity down.
That said, I agree - we're not too autonomous anyway, and modern lifestyle is directly dependent on being plugged into the socioeconomic machine. Still, economy was meant for man, not man for the economy; I'm worrying about how much economic interests restrict us for no other reason than lining someone's pocket. Technology enables individuals to do cool ways, to build the world around themselves as they see fit, but then comes the business models that start restricting these abilities in order to squeeze more money out of people.
Currently I lean more towards thinking that service-oriented economy is a problem, and in particular that SaaS and DRM are cancer.
How is * aaS anything more than the specialization of labor?
I am the architect responsible for design and maintenance of an in house software platform with a very small staff. We run everything on AWS and use as many of Amazon's services as we are contractionally allowed to - messaging, hosting, logging, security, etc. and outsource other non specialized software to other companies -- mail, source control (github), project management (Version One), time tracking, expense reporting, etc. It's much better than the bad old days where you had to maintain all of your own servers and host everything in house. It lets me concentrate my efforts on my team's core competencies - the platform we are trying to build.
Almost anytime we have a choice between supporting it in house or paying someone else to do it, we lean toward paying someone else to do if it meets our contractual requirements.
How is * aaS anything more than the specialization of labor?
I am the architect responsible for design and maintenance of an in house software platform with a very small staff. We run everything on AWS and use as many of Amazon's services as we are contractionally allowed to - messaging, hosting, logging, security, etc. and outsource other non specialized software to other companies -- mail, source control (github), project management (Version One), time tracking, expense reporting, etc. It's much better than the bad old days where you had to maintain all of your own servers and host everything in house. It lets me concentrate my efforts on my team's core competencies - the platform we are trying to build.
Almost anytime we have a choice between supporting it in house or paying someone else to do it, we lean toward paying someone else to do if it meets our contractual requirements.
I would love to see some use cases of what people want to be able to do with DRM'd media that 1) can't be done with current DRM limitations and 2) is within the guidelines of what the distributor allows (or within the rights given by the user's local government).
For example, my local library buys a set number of digital licenses for ebooks, so there's a waitlist system for ebooks and each digital copy is time gated to a certain number of days before becoming unusable. In that time, though, you can read the ebook offline once downloaded through the library's app. Annoying sometimes, but overall seems reasonable.
How would that example translate to a non-DRM version while making sure that the library isn't distributing an unbounded number of licenses to customers?
For example, my local library buys a set number of digital licenses for ebooks, so there's a waitlist system for ebooks and each digital copy is time gated to a certain number of days before becoming unusable. In that time, though, you can read the ebook offline once downloaded through the library's app. Annoying sometimes, but overall seems reasonable.
How would that example translate to a non-DRM version while making sure that the library isn't distributing an unbounded number of licenses to customers?
> I would love to see some use cases of what people want to be able to do with DRM'd media that 1) can't be done with current DRM limitations and 2) is within the guidelines of what the distributor allows (or within the rights given by the user's local government).
Play it on my linux machine?
Copy it to a different medium for my own personal use?
Inspect it for security vulnerabilities?
Build and sell a device that allows you to split the video signal into multiple parts so I can watch it on multiple screens arranged into one large screen?
Buy a device that allows me to inject home automation information onto the display on which I am watching it?
Do you need more?
Play it on my linux machine?
Copy it to a different medium for my own personal use?
Inspect it for security vulnerabilities?
Build and sell a device that allows you to split the video signal into multiple parts so I can watch it on multiple screens arranged into one large screen?
Buy a device that allows me to inject home automation information onto the display on which I am watching it?
Do you need more?
> more?
How about the highly experimental, expensive, poor-user-interface, precursors to whatever the next truly innovative killer app will be? We don't know what the really important use cases will be; we don't even know[1] which events or innovations are in the general direction of the next killer app.
The very idea that some ideas - aka information, intellectual works, or (bleh) "content" - can be owned is already offensive enough. For DRM to make any kind of sense you first have to presume you can enumerate the ways an idea will be used. If we knew that, we could skip most R&D.
Instead of trying artificially re-create scarcity, the Silicon Valley startup culture should be worried about of DRM fencing off next-decade's products.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_%28TV_series%29#Co...
How about the highly experimental, expensive, poor-user-interface, precursors to whatever the next truly innovative killer app will be? We don't know what the really important use cases will be; we don't even know[1] which events or innovations are in the general direction of the next killer app.
The very idea that some ideas - aka information, intellectual works, or (bleh) "content" - can be owned is already offensive enough. For DRM to make any kind of sense you first have to presume you can enumerate the ways an idea will be used. If we knew that, we could skip most R&D.
Instead of trying artificially re-create scarcity, the Silicon Valley startup culture should be worried about of DRM fencing off next-decade's products.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_%28TV_series%29#Co...
> I would love to see some use cases of what people want to be able to do with DRM'd media that 1) can't be done with current DRM limitations and 2) is within the guidelines of what the distributor allows (or within the rights given by the user's local government).
Simple. Play it on any device I own, now and in the future.
None of the drm formats sold 20 years ago live on today. Had my collection been based on those, and not open formats, it would be dead now.
What makes you think today's DRM will have a different fate?
Simple. Play it on any device I own, now and in the future.
None of the drm formats sold 20 years ago live on today. Had my collection been based on those, and not open formats, it would be dead now.
What makes you think today's DRM will have a different fate?
For 1) Do you remember the Walmart music store (hopefully
not, but it was a thing about a decade ago). It sold Plays For Sure™ Music with DRM servers operated by Walmart. Then Walmart shut it down and from that point forward users could no longer activate new devices that could read the files they had for.
So the use case is simple: play the music they licensed.
For 2) why is that an intermediary's responsibility? Can you photocopy a book from the library or book store, copy a CD, strip macrovision from a VHS cassette and record it on a second deck, or hand write a copy of sheet music? Sure. Does it violate the license. Maybe, maybe not. Get get the courts involved.
Relatedly, what about the right of first sale? All changes for DRM'd media have benefitted copyright holders. There needs to be a return to balance. (Having to own DHCP enabled products increases cost to the consumer, BD+ makes it difficult for most to backup blu-rays, SACD audio cannot be transported digitally, unencrypted, etc.).
DRM (and crazy long copyright extensions) hinders preservation at both the personal and societal levels. Copyrights intention was a limited monopoly in exchange for eventual free access to culturally relevant works. It no longer serves that purpose.
So the use case is simple: play the music they licensed.
For 2) why is that an intermediary's responsibility? Can you photocopy a book from the library or book store, copy a CD, strip macrovision from a VHS cassette and record it on a second deck, or hand write a copy of sheet music? Sure. Does it violate the license. Maybe, maybe not. Get get the courts involved.
Relatedly, what about the right of first sale? All changes for DRM'd media have benefitted copyright holders. There needs to be a return to balance. (Having to own DHCP enabled products increases cost to the consumer, BD+ makes it difficult for most to backup blu-rays, SACD audio cannot be transported digitally, unencrypted, etc.).
DRM (and crazy long copyright extensions) hinders preservation at both the personal and societal levels. Copyrights intention was a limited monopoly in exchange for eventual free access to culturally relevant works. It no longer serves that purpose.
Sell an ebook I bought on Amazon via ebay to someone else. Gift an ebook I bought. Refund DRM’d content I bought within of 14 days after sale without significant usage.
These are all things that the law says I have the Right to do, yet DRM providers frequently violate these rights.
These are all things that the law says I have the Right to do, yet DRM providers frequently violate these rights.
I don't think this is a well-formed question, because DRM is generally code implementing 2). That is, things DRM prevents you from doing are pretty much by definition things that are not within the guidelines of publishers.
But to treat the question charitably, here's one use case: I want to view the media on whatever devices I happen to own. That is, I want to e.g. start reading a e-book on my PC, continue on my Kindle, and then finish it on my smartwatch. Or my laser projector. Or my fishbowl. Also maybe I think the book's font is simply ugly, and I want to change it. Oh, and my Internet connection is pretty shitty, because I live in a developing nation and/or US rural area, so I'd love to be able to do all of that off-line at times[0].
That was a basic use case. To step it up, imagine I'm doing research. I want to do notes and cross-referencing, and I want to efficiently move around the text. Regular DRM-ed formats tend to make that nigh-impossible[1].
> How would that example translate to a non-DRM version while making sure that the library isn't distributing an unbounded number of licenses to customers?
It wouldn't, because DRM is by definition designed to limit you to only a very narrow way of consuming a piece of digital media. Any kind of additional flexibility will make it possible to "distribute an unbound number of licenses" for free.
Here's the fundamental conflict - as a consumer, I want to buy/rent a piece of content, as narrowly constrained as possible. In particular, I want the publisher to stop messing with the way I use it and the format I chose to consume. OTOH, publishers have exactly opposite interests - they want to have as much control over my consumption as possible, whether to make more money, to protect against copying, or both.
--
[0] - Related, it's kind of ridiculous to have to stream a book from the Internet all the time. DRM does encourage some pretty shitty engineering decisions.
[1] - Consider just how much economic damage is being done to society by using DRM to make media usable for lowest common denominator of consumers, while making it much more difficult to use in a specialized way for interesting or important work. It's a huge waste, to take a general-purpose computer and use its power to restrict its own functions.
But to treat the question charitably, here's one use case: I want to view the media on whatever devices I happen to own. That is, I want to e.g. start reading a e-book on my PC, continue on my Kindle, and then finish it on my smartwatch. Or my laser projector. Or my fishbowl. Also maybe I think the book's font is simply ugly, and I want to change it. Oh, and my Internet connection is pretty shitty, because I live in a developing nation and/or US rural area, so I'd love to be able to do all of that off-line at times[0].
That was a basic use case. To step it up, imagine I'm doing research. I want to do notes and cross-referencing, and I want to efficiently move around the text. Regular DRM-ed formats tend to make that nigh-impossible[1].
> How would that example translate to a non-DRM version while making sure that the library isn't distributing an unbounded number of licenses to customers?
It wouldn't, because DRM is by definition designed to limit you to only a very narrow way of consuming a piece of digital media. Any kind of additional flexibility will make it possible to "distribute an unbound number of licenses" for free.
Here's the fundamental conflict - as a consumer, I want to buy/rent a piece of content, as narrowly constrained as possible. In particular, I want the publisher to stop messing with the way I use it and the format I chose to consume. OTOH, publishers have exactly opposite interests - they want to have as much control over my consumption as possible, whether to make more money, to protect against copying, or both.
--
[0] - Related, it's kind of ridiculous to have to stream a book from the Internet all the time. DRM does encourage some pretty shitty engineering decisions.
[1] - Consider just how much economic damage is being done to society by using DRM to make media usable for lowest common denominator of consumers, while making it much more difficult to use in a specialized way for interesting or important work. It's a huge waste, to take a general-purpose computer and use its power to restrict its own functions.
That situation with library ebooks is widespread and is a prime example of imposed artificial scarcity. It seems silly to force tech that effectively provides unlimited supply to conform to the traditional library model of lending.
I much prefer a donations based model where anyone can read whatever they like, and then donate to the author if they feel inclined.
I much prefer a donations based model where anyone can read whatever they like, and then donate to the author if they feel inclined.
DRM only hurts legitimate customers. It seems increasingly rare that people aren't able to crack DRM's fairly quickly. So the only people that even see the DRM are the paying customer, and there is always some sort of inconvenient drawback for them.
A good example of this is the Denuvo DRM for games. As I understand it, game data was temporarily decrypted, while playing which led to poor performance. Denuvo games were cracked and the pirate versions performed better. Developers paid a lot for Denuvo DRM which didn't even fulfill the promise of stopping piracy.
Once the game has been cracked some publishers/devs have opted to release an update that removes the DRM and the potential performance hit (eg. Mass Effect Andromeda, Hitman, DOOM).
The performance hit in question, however, is an implementation detail that some developers handle better than others (Rime comes to mind as a game that performed Denuvo DRM checks many many times per second, it's speculated it was tied to per-frame update calls).
Denuvo still has a place (if it stays effective) in reducing the number of day-one pirates, which is its main selling point at this time. On Steam, interested players have a choice to put money down on release (with the potential to refund), or wait an indeterminate number of days (weeks?) to download the cracked version. This uncertainty period has a conversion rate that Denuvo clients balance against the costs of the DRM.
Denuvo still has a place (if it stays effective) in reducing the number of day-one pirates, which is its main selling point at this time. On Steam, interested players have a choice to put money down on release (with the potential to refund), or wait an indeterminate number of days (weeks?) to download the cracked version. This uncertainty period has a conversion rate that Denuvo clients balance against the costs of the DRM.
> Thus your children won’t get to play your music, show your favourite films, read your books, share your culture, with your grandchildren because they won’t inherit anything digital from you that’s usable. Historians won’t be able to track the influences on an event because the sources have digitally corroded. You’ll not even be able to share what you like with your friends.
Even Kodi assumes by (sane) defaults that the user does not want to save their own particular copy of the relevant media on their own particular device.
Imagining a future where grandchildren can't inherit the digital libraries stored on their family devices is early-2000's futurism that somehow skips completely over the year 2017 where the greater bulk of these future grandparents are streaming everything.
Even Kodi assumes by (sane) defaults that the user does not want to save their own particular copy of the relevant media on their own particular device.
Imagining a future where grandchildren can't inherit the digital libraries stored on their family devices is early-2000's futurism that somehow skips completely over the year 2017 where the greater bulk of these future grandparents are streaming everything.
It's all true--but it does nothing to explain how artists can be paid for their stuff at prices they set.
Interestingly the DMCA prohibits creating software to bypass DRM. It is completely unconstitutional, violating freedom of the press. That part of the law should be struck down.