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

51–60 of 276 posts

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

#51

Post by DeWilde »

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…

Not really, the issue with pirated content isn't getting the content from the DRM protected sources, it is distributing it.

What prevents distribution is taking down the sites that host content, leaving old-school torrenting as the most viable option, which is a hassle to most people.

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

#52

Post by gbanfalvi »

darawk wrote: post #36

This article is clickbait. The headline makes a bold claim, and then the article goes on to say: The purpose of DRM isn't to prevent copying, it's to prevent unlicensed reproduction. That is, it says 'copying' in different words, by trying to talk about things adjacent to copying, like forcing ads to play. Yes, content owners want to enforce all kinds of other things with DRM, but the fundamental thing is control of…

> then the article goes on to say: The purpose of DRM isn't to prevent copying, it's to prevent unlicensed reproduction. That is, it says 'copying' in different words, by trying to talk about things adjacent to copying,

I don't see that at all in the article. Anywhere.

What I read in the article is that it says that the purpose of DRM isn't to prevent _unlawful behaviour_, it's to enforce _lawful behaviour_ to be performed in a specific way. The actual _act_ of copying (or distribution, or playback, which are all a form of "copying", sure) is not as relevant to the author as the way that it is being done.

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

#53

Post by kaetemi »

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…

The DVD player in our house is a suspiciously branded region-free box.

Because that's apparently the only way to watch legitimate DVDs.

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

#54

Post by netcan »

>> The purpose of DRM is to give content providers leverage against creators of playback devices.

This is a good spot to place the pin.

The "theological" view is that (1) copyright is a moral right. (2) The Law just protects right against wrong, and(3) economic side effects of laws are incidental.

Real life is a lot less naive, so to speak. The commercial intellectual property concerns at stake are are record labels, apps, stores/distributors, large music & film portfolios and such. These exist, don't exist, have huge potential or not depending largely on the IP/DRM legislation and enforcement environment.

DRM is, IMO, an industrial policy. It gives shape and dimension to the music & film industry. Negotiating the leverage party type X has over Y is always a key feature of such policies.

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

#55

Post by Beldin »

r_hoods_ghost wrote: post #44

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 alw…

Your argument (the purpose of DRM is to delay pirates long enough to earn that crucial opening weekend or weeks revenue) is based on a few assumptions. A big one is that unlicensed downloading of creative works will meaningfully affect opening weekend revenue.

I could go along with that argument for movies that have been available for weeks on download sites. But I don't see how DRM would prevent a film from leaking way before its release date. If that happens, I'd venture you have a different problem.

For creative works with a longer "main revenue" window that are consumed on a computer (i.e. games), I can go along with this reasoning for top-priced titles. For games that are $15 on steam, dunno. Doesn't seem worth the effort to deprive the creator of some revenue, just to save 15 bucks. But what do I know, I don't make & sell games.

E-books seem different yet again - but again, I don't write and sell ebooks. Except for a handful of well-known titles or titles receiving universal praise and prize considerations, I'd guess you'd be lucky to be noticed in the book market. I have no clue whether more popularity will drive sales more than downloads will cut into sales.

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

#56

Post by fabioborellini »

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.

One of my favourite anecdotes is about an employee of a not-so-successful video streaming startup not knowing Popcorn Time being illegal, promoting its use at the water cooler and apparently using their company laptop for using it.

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

#57

Post by matheusmoreira »

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…

I can relate. In my country this stuff gets sold out in the open like it was nothing. Every once in a while some police operation disrupts their activities but it feels like it's just for show. Maybe I'll read about these operations in the US trade office's annual reports one day.

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

#58

Post by peoplefromibiza »

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 used to work ten times better than any paid streaming service of today.

also, no ads.

there is nothing inherently difficult in watching unlicensed content.

and downloading has been a thing since I can remember.

Everyone in my age range or younger than me (mid 40s) should know exactly how to do it.

the main two reasons people watch paid services nowadays are:

1 - they have kids and don't want to do parenting, because it's hard, so they buy Disney+ and leave the kids in front of it

2 - they are young and have been educated to them by their parents (AKA they don't pay for it)

3 - go back to one

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

#59

Post by peoplefromibiza »

_the_inflator wrote: post #45
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…

> 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…

> 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.

Funny thing is that pirated content is the only ethical content I know of, that doesn't rely on ads (streaming services have ads too, even if you pay)

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

#60

Post by kube-system »

danuker wrote: post #39
etaioinshrdlu wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> They hate piracy because it does cost them. https://torrentfreak.com/eu-piracy-report-suppression-raises... > “In general, the results do not show robust statistical evidence of displacement of sales by online copyright infringements,”

Read the next sentence too.

> That does not necessarily mean that piracy has no effect but only that the statistical analysis does not prove with sufficient reliability that there is an effect.

Absence of evidence != evidence of absence.

Post reply on HN