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

51–60 of 209 posts

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

#51

Post by 6stringmerc »

abritinthebay wrote: post #11
6stringmerc wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a previous discussion, I was informed of a mistaken assumption of mine: There was a case where Section 1201 was ruled as more applicable than Fair Use. It's my belief - and apparently questionable in reality - that Fair Use that passes the four-factor test should absolutely be exempt from DMCA restrictions. If the EFF case can somehow convince the court that the chilling effect is real, I will be thoroughly impres…

> the merit of the DMCA is to curtail incentive to engage in infringement on an industrial scale. But that is not what the law says . It is written in much more broad, general, terms. If they get them to say that in court then it would be a huge step forward.

I'm all for it! I want the law clarified, not completely tossed out. The expression "throwing the baby out with the bath water" is what I somewhat believe to be at play here.

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

#52

Post by shmerl »

Anti-circumvention laws should be repealed of course. But so far such attempts didn't go far. If this lawsuit will succeed, things will be easier, but it's a pretty random thing with courts. It might as well fail. What should be done is much stronger pressure on legislators to fix this mess. Most simply don't care about this issue because they don't understand its deep impact, and in result, politicians get away with keeping the status quo achieved through corrupted undemocratic lawmaking.

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

#53

Post by skolos »

throwaway1974 wrote: post #3

If it was not for DRM removal tools I would have recently been screwed by Amazon, here is my story: I was a longtime customer (easily 10 years or more I think) and have bought every version of Kindle to have come out over the years (unfortunately they break easily) and have build up a large collection Recently I replaced the debit card on my account as the old one expired, placed and order for a digital game code for…

Comment on "Kindle breaks easily". I have different experience. About 6 years ago I got Kindle for my birthday. Happily used it for half a year and then misplaced and couldn't find it for another half a year. Then I found it - it fell in a gap in my outside furniture and was lying outside exposed to elements for all this time. To bring it back to life all I needed is to charge it - used it for more than 5 years after that without any issues.

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

#54

Post by 6stringmerc »

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #50
6stringmerc wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Okay, I can follow how you interpret my statement. I'd like to clarify that what I was reaching for - and maybe missed - is establishing a "motive." As in, what is the "motive" to change the law? Is it completely altruistic? Is it capitalistic?

I'd like to think you'll grant me that the article is very one-sided, in that there's not a single mention of the arts industry's concerns with why they would fight so hard (almost psychotically hard) to establish and maintain the existence of DRM. Thus it felt, to me, extremely one-sided and, perhaps unwisely, I questioned the motive for such a framing.

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

#55

Post by jessaustin »

dhimes wrote: post #48
bad_user wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When you bought vinyl or CDs, you owned that. How can a temporary rental be worth the same?

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

#56

Post by eatbitseveryday »

Yetanfou wrote: post #25
throwaway1974 wrote: post #3

If it was not for DRM removal tools I would have recently been screwed by Amazon, here is my story: I was a longtime customer (easily 10 years or more I think) and have bought every version of Kindle to have come out over the years (unfortunately they break easily) and have build up a large collection Recently I replaced the debit card on my account as the old one expired, placed and order for a digital game code for…

Don't rely on any 'official' solution to maintain your digital library as those are sure to stop working in one way (company goes bankrupt or gets bought) or another (planned obsolescence, forced upgrade, etc) in a few years time. Configure your own using one of the existing tools; if you use Owncloud or Nextcloud you could use my OPDS Catalog app ( https://apps.owncloud.com/content/show.php?content=168132 ), possibl…

> Try to send the industry a signal by refusing to buy encumbered books (DRM, proprietary formats, etc).

This is what animal rights activists are advocating to do with meat products in the industry. Does the technique work, universally? Does it have success? It sounds reasonable, but requires a lot of people to change their behaviors.

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

#58

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

6stringmerc wrote: post #54
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Okay, I can follow how you interpret my statement. I'd like to clarify that what I was reaching for - and maybe missed - is establishing a "motive." As in, what is the "motive" to change the law? Is it completely altruistic? Is it capitalistic? I'd like to think you'll grant me that the article is very one-sided, in that there's not a single mention of the arts industry's concerns with why they would fight so hard (a…

> As in, what is the "motive" to change the law? Is it completely altruistic? Is it capitalistic?

Well, the motive probably varies person by person, but in any case probably can't really be reasonably summarized in a single word.

> I'd like to think you'll grant me that the article is very one-sided, in that there's not a single mention of the arts industry's concerns with why they would fight so hard (almost psychotically hard) to establish and maintain the existence of DRM.

Why should it not be one-sided? It's not like they are or pretend to be a neutral reporter. People from the "art industry" haven't exactly been known for presenting the EFF's and FSF's (and many others') arguments against DRM, and in particular against laws criminalizing the bypassing of DRM, have they?

> Thus it felt, to me, extremely one-sided and, perhaps unwisely, I questioned the motive for such a framing.

Well, nothing wrong with questioning it, I guess. I just don't see how you could then end up with the conclusion that it has something to do with the FSF disliking profit (or something to that effect), which is evidently not true.

Also, one very good reason for framing things a certain way is to challenge the prevailing framing. It's not exactly like the framing that's been established by the "art industry" is somehow neutral, after all.

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

#59

Post by nathanlied »

6stringmerc wrote: post #51
abritinthebay wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the merit of the DMCA is to curtail incentive to engage in infringement on an industrial scale. But that is not what the law says . It is written in much more broad, general, terms. If they get them to say that in court then it would be a huge step forward.

I'm all for it! I want the law clarified, not completely tossed out. The expression "throwing the baby out with the bath water" is what I somewhat believe to be at play here.

I agree fully. We need a big, BIG revamp of copyright laws, but that's "The War", this is -a- battle in that war, and in order not to fully alienate the 'other side', we must be aware that large-scale commercial copyright infringement, with our current system, is really, really bad.

Getting the courts/legislators to make the anti-circumvention clause only apply to commercial efforts, instead of absolutely anyone and anything (including researchers, oftentimes), would be a great victory.

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

#60

Post by hsod »

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…

What makes a price fair?
Post reply on HN