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

DRM Is Toxic to Culture

meshedinsights.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 263 posts

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#61

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

coldtea wrote: post #29
_jal wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. 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 "bu…

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.

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#62

Post by TeMPOraL »

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #41
skywhopper wrote: post #26

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 ti…

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…

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.

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#64

Post by type0 »

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #41
skywhopper wrote: post #26

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 ti…

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…

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?

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#65

Post by cygned »

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.

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#66

Post by 0xcde4c3db »

mhluongo wrote: post #50
AlphaWeaver wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If intellectual property rights ceased to exist, we wouldn't have a need for the GPL, wouldn't we?

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.

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#67

Post by ctulek »

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.

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#68

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

coldtea wrote: post #32
izacus wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

> 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?

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#69

Post by [deleted] »

hellbanner wrote: post #55
maxerickson wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 anyth…

Showing that contract up front I would guess your customers would leave. Many movie pirates aren't aware of the laws (eg. kids)

[deleted]

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#70

Post by coldtea »

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #61
coldtea wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 "bu…

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).

Post reply on HN