Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lawsuit could be the beginning of the end for DRM

defectivebydesign.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 209 posts

Re: Lawsuit could be the beginning of the end for DRM

#41

Post by 6stringmerc »

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #17
6stringmerc wrote: post #6

The link is to a reasonably thought out and worded perspective from that of a technology industry participant. As noted within, there are some guiding principles which establish the basis for perspective and action. As in, the Free Software Foundation wouldn't be interested in participating in the for-profit software market. For a counter-point, when this case first broke and I was able to study the implications from…

> As in, the Free Software Foundation wouldn't be interested in participating in the for-profit software market. You are mistaken. The FSF does not object to making a profit with software. In fact, they have been selling software themselves. It's about free as in freedom, not about free as in beer.

Arguably destroying the DRM protections will have ripple effects on the for-profit software market. Do you contend otherwise?

Re: Lawsuit could be the beginning of the end for DRM

#42

Post by xg15 »

FussyZeus wrote: post #33
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is the greed and narcissism on both sides. The content corps make a ton of money by exploiting creative people. They used to be able to justify this by claiming that they sponsored and nurtured talent. That was always a stretch, even when 15% of a CD sale - maximum - went to the original creator, and the rest to the rest of the industry. But advances did happen, and they were the only way creatives could…

> The content corps make a ton of money by exploiting creative people. That shouldn't be part of this debate. It's despicable, there's no doubt but a company doing unethical things doesn't give license for anyone to steal from them. If you don't want to support them that's your choice, you can't choose to steal the product under the banner of moral outrage and claim to be in the right. Tons of companies exploit tons…

It shouldn't, but supporting artists is often brought up as an argument from the content industry to justify DRM or absurd lengths of copyright. So it's valid to debunk that argument in this context.

Of course that doesn't change the fact that supporting artists is an actual problem and TheOtherHobbes' objections to the privacy cloud are very real. However, there are other projects (e.g. Patreon) that experiment with solutions without resolving to DRM.

Re: Lawsuit could be the beginning of the end for DRM

#43

Post by 6stringmerc »

in_the_sticks wrote: post #19
6stringmerc wrote: post #6

The link is to a reasonably thought out and worded perspective from that of a technology industry participant. As noted within, there are some guiding principles which establish the basis for perspective and action. As in, the Free Software Foundation wouldn't be interested in participating in the for-profit software market. For a counter-point, when this case first broke and I was able to study the implications from…

That essay could start off better. Assigning your side blue and the opposing side red and then immediately showing that red==bad, blue==good feels kind of hostile to opposing views.

That was not my intention though I understand the impression it might make. I was going for higher contrast. I suppose even using "green" for one could be interpreted as a form of insinuating greed? It was a sketch of an idea to conceptualize, as I'm genuinely between both parties with respect to merits and criticisms. Which, I do acknowledge, is not necessarily a welcome perspective in this particular site.

Re: Lawsuit could be the beginning of the end for DRM

#44

Post by dwyerm »

kakarot wrote: post #21
superuser2 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've taken to viewing Kindle books as a very expensive indefinite-but-temporary library loan. Between the years+ length of the borrowing period, instant delivery, lighted screen, compactness, and travel-friendliness it can be worth the premium over a public library loan. In dollars per hour of entertainment, it's better than some options. But it is ultimately a rental. If you have a relatively progressive library and…

Orrrr support a non-DRM publisher. Ya know

I started buying from Angry Robot a while back because they sent me free DRM-free epubs to get me hooked on their authors. I've been buying from them ever since, and that's the only reason I discovered that Chuck Wendig's books are amazing. Sure, I've got to pay in GBP instead of USD, but this is the internet and with digital delivery, that kind of stuff doesn't matter.

Unfortunately, everyone else discovered that Chuck was good, so he moved to a big publisher and I assume they required him to go with DRM. I can no longer find his books unencumbered.

tl;dr: There are great non-DRM publishers, and they might have great books. It is in our interest to support them.

Re: Lawsuit could be the beginning of the end for DRM

#45

Post by 6stringmerc »

pdkl95 wrote: post #31
6stringmerc wrote: post #6

The link is to a reasonably thought out and worded perspective from that of a technology industry participant. As noted within, there are some guiding principles which establish the basis for perspective and action. As in, the Free Software Foundation wouldn't be interested in participating in the for-profit software market. For a counter-point, when this case first broke and I was able to study the implications from…

> Copyright Abolitionists Only a small subset of people against DRM and the problems in the DMCA are against copyright. Also, as zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC already pointed out, the FSF is fine[1] with for-profit software. This confusion often derives from an assumption that you have to deny distribution rights to your customers to sell them anything. That isn't always true. > study the implications What you seem to be missing (…

Using your reasoning, only a small subset of people are genuinely affected by the Section 1201 implications - security researchers in particular. Again, you also in some ways prove my point by mentioning that DRM work-arounds are nearly a daily occurrence in certain arenas. My essay argues - vehemently - that academic exemption that passes the Four Factor Fair Use test absolutely deserves to be codified into the Section 1201 going forward. This is not hard to understand.

What you are missing, which is extremely important, is that Copyright is a synthetic construct and therefore absolutely useless without any protectionist mechanism. AKA "the right to make copies" - DRM is just that - a mechanism to protect the right of the originator to, under Copyright law, retain power over the "Intellectual Property." I believe it's counter-productive, or maybe even logically dishonest, to claim that destroying DRM isn't extremely intertwined with Copyright as we know it.

Re: Lawsuit could be the beginning of the end for DRM

#46

Post by 6stringmerc »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #27
6stringmerc wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very encouraging to read and I'm in complete agreement. I've posted a link to my essay in this thread because I share the media/tech slugfest perspective. Personally I think the starting point to get out of this mess is an overhaul first and foremost of Copyright terms. They're so far out of whack it genuinely stifles innovation and expression and progress...etc. Now, more than ever, time moves quickly - what…

The problem is the greed and narcissism on both sides. The content corps make a ton of money by exploiting creative people. They used to be able to justify this by claiming that they sponsored and nurtured talent. That was always a stretch, even when 15% of a CD sale - maximum - went to the original creator, and the rest to the rest of the industry. But advances did happen, and they were the only way creatives could…

Very well thought out response and I think you do touch on something I'm aware of and might be able to mention:

There are fan-artist platforms in existence. Patreon is one of the most prominent. BitTorrent now has a "rolling" grant process (disclosure: I plan on applying) to nurture talent by way of financial and promotional backing. These avenues exist, but they are, frankly speaking, outside the RIAA-dominated easy-access to content services like YouTube or Spotify.

The music business claiming artists "used to" make a living off sound recordings is total garbage. It only applied to the top 1%. The tech industry claiming that it's "being persecuted and rights are being trampled" when the root-motivation is to disrupt an industry for profit without the bothersome issue of negotiating licenses for content is also garbage. In the middle, fans & artists both kind of lose out in the grand scheme of things.

Re: Lawsuit could be the beginning of the end for DRM

#47

Post by daenney »

lmm wrote: post #30
derekp7 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The recourse for anyone else would be a lawsuit in small claims court. That would at least get their attention, and possibly an issue resolution.

Credit card chargebacks for every kindle book you bought? Would probably remove all chance of reconciliation, but it would send a message.

I doubt it works just like that. If you do that you'll have to file for a claim, which will then be investigated by your bank or credit issuer. There's some procedures around what you can and cannot claim for and more things that need to happen according to the Fair Credit Billing Act (in the US). Since you've already taken possession of the good and used it I'm not sure you'll get much out of it though I have no idea how this would even work/apply to digital works.

And I doubt they'll let you go back years.

Re: Lawsuit could be the beginning of the end for DRM

#48

Post by dhimes »

bad_user wrote: post #35
acdha wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of this comes down to terminology: the people who are the most upset about DRM are the people who thought they were “buying” something in the same manner as a physical item and are at some point rudely reminded that the company considers it more like a temporary license. Very few people mind services like Netflix or Spotify because it's extremely clear that you're paying for a month of access at a time. I doubt…

The problem is of course that we as humans don't like to rent, we like to own and for good reasons. We only prefer to rent when overall the price is much better than owning or when we don't have a choice. Netflix and Spotify don't have a problem with their subscribers because the price is fair. $10 per month is fair for unlimited access to TV shows that you like. $10 is also fair for unlimited access to all the music…

But these prices haven't changed much in decades. Books have always cost that much, as have albums (the exception being textbooks). Discount vinyl record albums were US $5.99 in the 1970s.

I have issues with DRM, but not because I find the prices exorbitant.

Re: Lawsuit could be the beginning of the end for DRM

#49

Post by 6stringmerc »

bad_user wrote: post #23

Just a friendly reminder that there are online shops that sell DRM-free content. I found this guide helpful: https://www.defectivebydesign.org/guide In particular, I'm a Downpour.com customer for audio books. Up until now they had all the content I wanted, high quality too. And with a subscription the prices are good. I've also bought DRM-free games from Gog.com. E-books I sometimes buy from Google Play, where they h…

I'm a long-time, very happy Beatport customer. DRM free. To my knowledge, a purchase also includes the implied right of public performance (as in, can play in non-ASCAP/BMI venues without violating terms of the purchase).

Re: Lawsuit could be the beginning of the end for DRM

#50

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

6stringmerc wrote: post #41
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As in, the Free Software Foundation wouldn't be interested in participating in the for-profit software market. You are mistaken. The FSF does not object to making a profit with software. In fact, they have been selling software themselves. It's about free as in freedom, not about free as in beer.

Arguably destroying the DRM protections will have ripple effects on the for-profit software market. Do you contend otherwise?

Pretty much every change in law has some ripple effects on some for-profit market. Saying that therefore, an organization pushing for that change is somehow against making a profit in that market is just straw-manning it.
Post reply on HN