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

111–120 of 276 posts

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

#111

Post by zucker42 »

kebos wrote: post #73

DRM is a requirement of the insurance providers who insure distributors and pay out if the distributor leads to the content being leaked. In reality the DRM technology isn't that important its more akin to the questionnaire you get for car insurance that says do you have a thatcham alarm. Too much analysis looks at this from technical angle when it's really an insurers tool to lower their risk (only to lower it!). It…

> DRM is a requirement of the insurance providers who insure distributors and pay out if the distributor leads to the content being leaked.

Do you have any evidence of such insurance policies existing? I've never heard of them before. It seems strange considering that most pieces of content are leaked fairly quickly.

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

#112

Post by peoplefromibiza »

TchoBeer wrote: post #98
jackthezipper wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not stealing it's sharing.

Pirates don't pay media companies to produce media

Let's not pretend that media companies are givers though...

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/music-news/tv-film-co...

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/oct/26/squid-g...

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-57838473

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-57382459

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/scarlett-johansson-sues-dis...

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-56815282

Also, streaming services are swimming in cash and using it to monopolize the market, instead of rewarding creators.

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

#113

Post by IceWreck »

progbits wrote: post #99

Off-topic but the archive.org page is unusable for me on mobile due to the donation banner: the close button is obscured by the timeline and can't be clicked, "maybe later" replaces it with a different banner asking for contact info which I also can't close. I love IA and have donated to them before but this is slowly sliding into the dark UX patterns making web unusable.

> I love IA and have donated to them before but this is slowly sliding into the dark UX patterns making web unusable.

This is ironic because the internet archive made this just last year https://wayforward.archive.org/

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

#114

Post by ClumsyPilot »

kube-system wrote: post #27
dilyevsky wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is drm responsible for the absence of such apps? If anything it’s the dmca systems and an army of lawyers

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.

Speedbumps are way more effective than cops

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

#115

Post by cloogshicer »

bni wrote: post #110

DRM currently works very well to prevent copying of PC games during initial sales window. There is a long list of not cracked Denuvo games. Some have been on the list for years. I think it is interesting that this is the case now since 5+ years ago games were cracked within days, always.

I think part of this change is just that there is such a high number of new games coming out every day.

Also, with sales going on all the time, there is much less incentive for many people to torrent. It's also more convenient to own the game on Steam due to automatic updates, mods, etc.

As Gabe Newell said, piracy is a service problem. Provide a better service and it'll go away. I think this is largely what has happened here. Same with streaming services like Netflix.

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

#116

Post by ClumsyPilot »

consp wrote: post #25
jayd16 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If pirate sites were allowed to flourish, they'd surely end up feeling as good as Netflix or better.

Popcorn time was/is pretty much the pinnacle of it so I'd say they got pretty close to being better than the streaming services.

Popcord time created resillient dustributed video service, with no hosting costs. It is technologically superior to anything all those billion dollar companoes have ever created.

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

#117

Post by peoplefromibiza »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #90
peoplefromibiza wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 parent…

When you're young being excluded from the principle cultural medium film/television cause social exclusion to done extent. When you can't afford to pay I think this provides a genuine moral reason for copyright infringement. With morally defensible copyright terms it might not. As you age (30s-40s), generally your can afford more and so access some of these most popular cultural artefacts without copyright infringeme…

> As you age (30s-40s), generally your can afford more and so access some of these most popular cultural artefacts

At my age I have no FOMO, truth is I never had it before either, it might be me or the fact that I am naturally immune to most mimetic tactics, I simply get no reward from social acceptance.

Anyway: at my age I have developed my own moral compass,I pay to go to the movies, I pay for concerts, I pay for records, I pay for books, I pay to watch and listen online content that I think it's worth it (I buy a lot of music from Bandcamp) I have no ethical problem boycotting VC funded services that want to build a monopoly (growth, they call it) and have fragmented the market in ways that "excluded [people] from the principle cultural medium film/television" of their times.

sorry, not sorry.

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

#118

Post by ClumsyPilot »

kube-system wrote: post #20
14 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My dad is elderly and has figured out how to watch online movies for free. He goes to [1] and it is just like netflix point and click no skill needed. 1 https://flixtor.to/home

I have no doubt that one, or even thousand of seniors are pirating the latest movies. I’m not saying that people don’t pirate stuff. But Netflix has 213 million users. If pirating was really so much easier and DRM made legal options unusable, they wouldn’t. DRM sucks, but Netflix isn’t going out of business any time soon

"But Netflix has 213 million users. If pirating was really so much easier.."

I am willing to bet there are more than 500 million people pirating, so I don't think this argument carries much weight. Netflix is a very 'rich western country' thing. The rest of the world exists.

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

#119

Post by grishka »

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…

Reasons piracy still exists and will exist approximately forever:

- Something not being available in your country

- The version that is available is a "helpfully" translated one when you would rather watch the original with subs

- Your device isn't worthy of receiving a high-quality stream despite you paying for one and your hardware being capable of decoding it

- The player is just shitty and you can't use your own

- There are ads despite you paying a subscription

- You "bought" a movie, then it was taken away from you because the seller lost the license. In other words, your continued access to something you allegedly own is still contingent on the seller and its whims.

It's surprising how much people are willing to tolerate, but in general, around me torrenting something is still the default. Some people do have Netflix or other subscriptions, but they are a minority. Just no one is having this whole "you get the same exact movie but you pay AND you get a worse UX" thing.

And DVDs? I don't think I've ever seen an actually licensed and encrypted DVD. Many players ignore all those "no fast forwarding" flags as well.

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

#120

Post by peoplefromibiza »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #94
peoplefromibiza wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's look at it from another perspective: in 2020 people collectively decided it was easier to send Netflix $25 billion instead of other forms of entertainment (cinemas, theaters, concert halls, stadium, etc were closed) Pirating skyrocketed as well during 2020 The two things are not adversaries as much as one might think Theatrical releases on streaming services have helped piracy, now you can download a movie mere…

How do those spikes compare to the spikes on sites that you believe to be non-infringing?

I don't know.

If you know more, I'm curious to listen.

Post reply on HN