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

The purpose of DRM is not to prevent copyright violations (2013)

web.archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 276 posts

Re: The purpose of DRM is not to prevent copyright violations (2013)

#41

Post by matheusmoreira »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #26

Why the conspiracy theory? It works very well to stop piracy (since it's a hassle to have to pick a bottorrent program, install it, deal with it's annoying popups and ads (because you're a normal user and chose a popular bittorrent client), avoid the popups on the pirate bay, know what a magnet link it, find a player for .mkv files. It's easier to pay $15 to buy the show on Amazon. Anyone who disagrees hasn't tried t…

> It's easier to pay $15 to buy the show on Amazon.

My local currency is currently exchanged for USD at a factor of nearly 6 to 1, making that $15 nearly 10% of minimum wage where I live. And that's before taxes.

Re: The purpose of DRM is not to prevent copyright violations (2013)

#42

Post by ddtaylor »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #26

Why the conspiracy theory? It works very well to stop piracy (since it's a hassle to have to pick a bottorrent program, install it, deal with it's annoying popups and ads (because you're a normal user and chose a popular bittorrent client), avoid the popups on the pirate bay, know what a magnet link it, find a player for .mkv files. It's easier to pay $15 to buy the show on Amazon. Anyone who disagrees hasn't tried t…

There are all-in-one solutions like Popcorn Time that do everything for you automatically and simply provide a Netflix like browsing experience.

Re: The purpose of DRM is not to prevent copyright violations (2013)

#43

Post by oarsinsync »

petepete wrote: post #31
kube-system wrote: post #7

I also don’t think it’s even necessary to prevent copyright infringement to achieve a goal of effectively steering people towards paid sources. I often hear arguments that its “easier to pirate movies than use DRM’d software”. But I don’t think this is actually the case for the average non-tech-savvy person. If you can operate a torrent client or even know what one is, you are much savvier than the average Netflix/Ro…

Popcorn Time being shut down by the MPAA is the reason there's no simple app for your mum and aunt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popcorn_Time Unfortunately now there are so many streaming platforms piracy will gain in popularity again. Lots of people don't mind paying for one or two, but probably not five or six. Especially when some just have one or two good programmes.

Wikipedia link shows that it's very much still alive, just on a different domain. MPAA managed to shutdown various domains, and get Github to stop hosting their source, but it appears that they're still very much alive and kicking.

Re: The purpose of DRM is not to prevent copyright violations (2013)

#44

Post by r_hoods_ghost »

There's a couple of problems with this analysis.

1) it only considers two of the three main actors in the DRM sphere - content "providers", by which the author seems to mean content distributors, and manufacturers of playback devices. It completely ignores why content creators, the people who actually make stuff, might want to use DRM. Yes sometimes these are the same entities as the content distributors. But not always.

2) it ascribes intent(purpose) to actors without examining what those actors say about their intent. The closest it gets is criticising the arguments of fellow opponents of DRM. This isn't even strawmanning. If you want to understand the purpose behind your opponent's acts its generally a good idea to look at the arguments of said opponents rather than the arguments of your allies.

Ignoring 2, let's look at why content creators might want to use DRM, knowing that it can eventually be circumvented. If you're a content creator then delaying pirates by just a week or two can have a massive effect on your revenue. For example on steam roughly 1/4 to 1/2 of a games revenue for the first year will be earned in the first week[1].

The movie business and book publishing is similarly skewed to opening weekends. While sleeper hits and cult classics do exist they are the exception, not the rule.

So from a content creator's (mine) point of view, the purpose of DRM is to delay pirates long enough to earn that crucial opening weekend or weeks revenue, and this continue eating. Creators know that pirates will likely crack the DRM at some point, and its not unusual to remove it after a time, since by that point it no longer matters.

I frankly don't care a jot about some imagined power struggle between distributors and manufacturers. What I care about is being able to make a living.

I know there will always be parasites who want everything for free despite being able to pay, and people who genuinely can't afford to pay for content (fair enough, but do you actually need a copy of generic superhero movie pt. XII to live a fulfilling life. No), and I accept that. But I don't have to make life easy for them.

[1]https://newsletter.gamediscover.co/p/steam-the-state-of-long...

Re: The purpose of DRM is not to prevent copyright violations (2013)

#45

Post by _the_inflator »

devwastaken wrote: post #11
kube-system wrote: post #7

I also don’t think it’s even necessary to prevent copyright infringement to achieve a goal of effectively steering people towards paid sources. I often hear arguments that its “easier to pirate movies than use DRM’d software”. But I don’t think this is actually the case for the average non-tech-savvy person. If you can operate a torrent client or even know what one is, you are much savvier than the average Netflix/Ro…

I thought this was true until I visited an old friend in a trailer park, of which their family would borrow DVDs written with pirated movies. There were many reasons why. No internet, too expensive, no blu-ray player, etc. It was amazing how they could just put in a DVD, and instantly movie for their children. These kids had rarely ever seen an ad on TV in their life. The people who made the disks got paid, too. Mark…

> Don't underestimate the amount of tech knowledge people have nowadays, especially if it will save money.

This works also in the opposite direction. I know of some couples, who can easily share even 200USD/month on streaming services, however they consider "the alternatives" to "save money", who are of course illegal here in Europe.

Nowadays "saving" let's say 20USD for Netflix per month is - in my opinion - a very bad bargain considering the fact, that you can end up paying a lot of punitive damages.

Pirated software/movies always added some sort of value to the product. For example, DVDs forced (and still do) you to watch a couple of minutes of FBI warnings, anti-piracy trailers etc. instead of just letting you instantly watch the movie you paid (!) for. Pirated DVDs just offered the movie, full control to the user - like in streaming nowadays.

So if you have the money, I do not get people who want to "save money" on streaming.

Re: The purpose of DRM is not to prevent copyright violations (2013)

#46

Post by matheusmoreira »

5e92cb50239222b wrote: post #15
devwastaken wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought this was true until I visited an old friend in a trailer park, of which their family would borrow DVDs written with pirated movies. There were many reasons why. No internet, too expensive, no blu-ray player, etc. It was amazing how they could just put in a DVD, and instantly movie for their children. These kids had rarely ever seen an ad on TV in their life. The people who made the disks got paid, too. Mark…

> This is how it goes in other countries, too, where you cannot even legitimately get disks or downloads, much less be able to afford them. Oh yes, thank you for remembering that. It's truly an exception around here. Pretty much all streaming services refuse to accept my money or provide access to 0.1-1% of their catalog (compared to what is available in the US, literally a few to a few dozen shows/movies) for exactl…

Same experience here. Video game consoles used to come with modchips preinstalled. For a long time I was the odd guy who bought original stuff. Streaming services made it much easier to consume but I still see the occasional person relying on ad-filled blogs with download links.

Re: The purpose of DRM is not to prevent copyright violations (2013)

#47

Post by midjji »

etaioinshrdlu wrote: post #13
kingcharles wrote: post #8

All of that article is wrong. I used to work in DRM. I implemented, I believe, the first DRM for practically every major and minor record label in Europe and North America. The only reason any of them stated to me that they required DRM was to prevent copyright infringement. Yes, I pointed out the insanity of their solution. The firm I worked for didn't have the muscle of the one that came on our heels (Apple) and ma…

Yeah, I find that looking for a conspiracy here absolutely hilarious. Why can't it just be as simple as copyright holders really, really, really hate piracy, and are definitely willing to make a technical mess to do it? They hate piracy because it does cost them. How complicated does it need to be?

Unwillingness to change, I think, is a important part of the explanation. The old music companies were unable to provide the service their customers now asked for, i.e. convenient online, streaming, etc. In order to do so they would need to fundamentally change every aspect of their industry, from production, to artist contracts, to marketing, to financing, to distribution, and sales.

Now if you were an executive on any level on such a corporation, would you want to continue doing the minimum effort thing of keeping everything the same? Or would you recommend completely changing everything, including replacing you with someone with different skills. Itunes did not hire the same distribution of people as the old record companies had, not even close. They could not fight it forever, and the change is still in progress, with more artists than ever using alternate crowdsourcing, etc.

Re: The purpose of DRM is not to prevent copyright violations (2013)

#48

Post by norman784 »

Uehreka wrote: post #14

So tonight I watched a 1080p pirated copy of Spiderman: Far From Home. And I gotta say, it was kinda crap. The sound would randomly cut out, and the compression was absolute ass (it was the perfect artifact to show people when explaining “not all 1080p’s are created equal”, especially when they’re fighting the water elemental) I really do think that DRM has won folks. We have seen the 4K HDR future, and what we find…

If you are linux user you cannot consume legal content (that you paid for) in high quality, even when you are paying for it, iirc Prime gives you 720p and Netflix 1080p.

Re: The purpose of DRM is not to prevent copyright violations (2013)

#49

Post by kube-system »

oriolid wrote: post #35
kube-system wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technical friction is also a factor. It’s much like speed bumps on a road. They don’t prevent people from going 50 in a 25. But they make it more of a PITA, even when a cop also might pull you over.

Not really. The speed bumps affect everyone, but it's enough that one person or group cracks the DRM and makes the result available for everyone.

It doesn’t have to be much friction to have an impact. People take the path of least resistance.

Re: The purpose of DRM is not to prevent copyright violations (2013)

#50

Post by tdsamardzhiev »

danuker wrote: post #34
phendrenad2 wrote: post #26

Why the conspiracy theory? It works very well to stop piracy (since it's a hassle to have to pick a bottorrent program, install it, deal with it's annoying popups and ads (because you're a normal user and chose a popular bittorrent client), avoid the popups on the pirate bay, know what a magnet link it, find a player for .mkv files. It's easier to pay $15 to buy the show on Amazon. Anyone who disagrees hasn't tried t…

> It's easier to pay $15 to buy the show on Amazon. Depends on the value of your time. If you get paid less in the amount it takes you to learn all that (like living in a 3rd world country), then it's not worth the $15.

The amount of time it takes to learn all that is like 15 minutes. And it's one-time investment.
Post reply on HN