Live data from Hacker News

DRM Is Toxic to Culture

meshedinsights.com

181–190 of 263 posts

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cul…

> 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?

Sorry, that statement wasn't directed at you specifically but the recurring arguments that crop up around this topic on HN.

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#182
post #166
post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#183

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…

> 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?

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#184
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do we let that difference exist? You're trying to lead the debate about changing laws by quoting laws.

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?

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#185

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…

> 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?

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#186

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…

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.

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#187

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…

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.

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#188

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 2…

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 ma…

> 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.

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ver…

> 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…

> 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?

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ver…

> 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…

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.

Post reply on HN