The purpose of DRM is not to prevent copyright violations (2013) • Hacker News Board

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

#141

Post by quietbritishjim » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 2:24 PM UTC

sandworm101 wrote: post #138

netcan wrote: post #54

>> 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,…

>> (3) economic side effects of laws are incidental. Not with intellectual property. This isn't ten-commandments stuff, protections against evil. Intellectual property law is an openly commercial law meant to increase the profitability of innovations. I remember an article from way back about what the Bible would think of copyright "piracy". It is such modern set of laws that anyone mentioned in the bible would proba…

I agree that the purpose of copyright is not moral rights, even in theory. But I disagree that the theoretical purpose is profit (i.e. economic benefit to the creator).

The idea (again, this is just in theory) is economic benefit to society overall. The idea is that if there's no copyright then creators would have no economic incentive to create anything, so they wouldn't bother. Profit to copyright owners is just a mechanism to incentivise them to create benefit to society.

Actually, that's the theoretical reason for all profit, not just for copyright.

A consequence of this is that there shouldn't be any increase to copyright term that only increases profits but doesn't increase benefit to society. But obviously political lobbyists don't follow that theory.

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

#142

Post by jlokier » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 2:25 PM UTC

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #77

TchoBeer wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pirated content doesn't need ads because they steal the work of people who do.

I like to think that it's people taking from corporations, while UGC is corporations taking from people, spamming them with ads, monetizing their hobbies and selling their personal data. anyway, if I pay for Netflix who has produced their own content, why should I also watch the ads for other Netflix content? Isn't it enough to pay for it?

Here in the UK, I don't get pre-roll ads on Netflix. After clicking play on an episode or movie it starts immediately. Remarkably good quality over low bandwidth rural links, too.

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

#143

Post by BlueTemplar » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 2:26 PM UTC

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #58

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 parent…

Why "used to" ? Have the new "owners" made the experience worse ?

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

#144

Post by BlueTemplar » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 2:29 PM UTC

juliendorra wrote: post #79

zo1 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never actually used Popcorn Time. What made it so great?

It was as easy to use as an official streaming service is, with integrated subtitles downloads in the background (from open subtitles), links to trailers and critics sites (it also pulled a lot of metadata from different sources). Popular movies were always on top of the list because the default sorting was by seeders and these movies would load instantly At the time it was the best streaming experience existing, pai…

Why "was" ?

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

#145

Post by spankalee » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 2:30 PM UTC

This is a post about NFTs right?

NFTs are DRM 2.0, but without any current leverage against the "players". If there ever is such leverage (which in the article should be copyright as much as DRM), then it will be the players that enforce DRM, not the blockchain. Just like copyright doesn't enforce itself.

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

#146

Post by l72 » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 2:30 PM UTC

stilisstuk wrote: post #103

krylon wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has been like that for a long time. The non-skippable intro screen warning viewers of the evils of unlicensed copying was only ever seen by people not watching an unlicensed copy. FWIW, I think movies need to take the same route music did. Ever since I found out I could just buy DRM-free high-quality audio at a reasonable price, I have happily paid for the music I like, because it was so very convenient. If it was…

Where do you buy audio? I don't use apple (itunes) and only some stuff is on bandcamp...

Primarily bandcamp, since I can get flac and support artists directly. But I also use 7-digital for more mainstream releases (they also offer flac and some releases as Hi-Res 24-bit flac if that is your thing)

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

#147

Post by alisonkisk » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 2:37 PM UTC

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…

But why does insurance require it?

#148

Post by alisonkisk » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 2:38 PM UTC

johnebgd wrote: post #74

DRM manages rights like jail manages freedom.

No post body was provided.

#149

Post by kebos » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 2:48 PM UTC

zucker42 wrote: post #111

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.

The contracts and indemnity policies drawn up against the contract aren't public things so there is no example I can show.

The leaking of content doesn't matter that much unless it really affects revenues in the scale of the revenues.

It's ironic really. The absolute prevention of leaking content isn't expected. DRM is more like making sure the front door isn't wide open.

#150

Post by ipaddr » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 2:50 PM UTC

netcan wrote: post #106

krylon wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has been like that for a long time. The non-skippable intro screen warning viewers of the evils of unlicensed copying was only ever seen by people not watching an unlicensed copy. FWIW, I think movies need to take the same route music did. Ever since I found out I could just buy DRM-free high-quality audio at a reasonable price, I have happily paid for the music I like, because it was so very convenient. If it was…

Netflix & Spotify are currently worth $275bn & $45bn. I think it's quite unlikely that such results would be achieved with a pay-x-get-y store model. Even Disney & Universal, themselves enormously valuable companies, are greedily eying the platform model. It has everything they want. Recurring revenues. Content pushing abilities, which is usually the most strategically important asset. Platform monopoly potential, wh…

275 billion? Seems overvalued as we enter a new cycle of more services going online.