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

191–200 of 263 posts

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#191

Post by Silhouette »

icebraining wrote: post #159
Silhouette wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 model…

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)…

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.

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#192

Post by xg15 »

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…

>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.

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#193

Post by confounded »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #152
musesum wrote: post #89

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 sto…

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…

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.

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#194

Post by eastWestMath »

izacus wrote: post #184
eastWestMath wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#195

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

anigbrowl wrote: post #179
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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?

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#196

Post by chx »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #152
musesum wrote: post #89

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 sto…

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…

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.

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#197

Post by TeMPOraL »

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #188
TeMPOraL wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 peopl…

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.

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#198

Post by Retric »

icebraining wrote: post #150
Retric wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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/

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#199

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

Silhouette wrote: post #191
icebraining wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)…

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.

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?

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#200

Post by Silhouette »

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #149
Silhouette wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 model…

> 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 digit…

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.

Post reply on HN