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)

#231

Post by dahart » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 7:18 PM UTC

otrahuevada wrote: post #225

dahart wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Easily duplicable cultural products? You’re suggesting that you should be able to take something someone else made because it’s easy to do? It would be easy to steal your computer from you — should that make it legal for me to do so? You think movies should become historic cultural relics with free access to all whenever they are popular? If your wish came true, how exactly would the movie’s creation get funded in th…

> Easily duplicable cultural products? You’re suggesting that you should be able to take something someone else made because it’s easy to do? No, I'm not. What's more, that's an easily disprovable lie: My duplicating of a file does not somehow delete the original. My downloading of this page hasn't done anything to your post. > Movies often costs tens to hundreds of millions to produce, and they only take on that lev…

The argument that you’re not stealing something physical is an old, tired, immature, and naive narrative that seems willfully ignorant of the reality that copyright law is protecting the consumption of copies, it’s about protecting the initial investment and the business model, not the cost of production of individual copies. You actually are hurting the artists by consuming a copy without their permission, because the transaction they’ve offered is to trade your viewing of the movie for a small amount of money. The word “stealing” is defined to include taking something without permission, and does not depend on whether they get deprived of the thing you take.

You’ve made several snarky and strawman replies about money, but ignored the actual point I made; the fact that copyright laws do not depend or discriminate based on profits. This is a fact, not a debate. Your opinion about any given studio’s claimed losses is completely irrelevant to the question of whether you should be allowed to break the law.

> My job does not rely on handing copies of our product’s binaries to people if they pinky promise they’ll only use it in a way we approve of though.

Yes it does. You’re wrong. Does your product’s use come with a EULA? Does your company have any security? Does your product get paid for? Are you putting your code in the public domain? If you write code, your code is covered by copyright law, and you have both legal and technical mechanisms in place to protect people from taking your code and your product for themselves without your company’s permission. You are doing the same things as DRM, you’re being hypocritical.

> I'm not asking anyone to give anything away for free.

Then I’ve gotten the wrong impression, please clarify what you mean. You’ve argued above that you (and everyone) should be able to watch movies for free because they’re easy to duplicate and they are cultural assets. What are you asking for then?

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

#232

Post by quietbritishjim » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 7:24 PM UTC

coldpie wrote: post #157

quietbritishjim wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The idea is that if there's no copyright then creators would have no economic incentive to create anything, so they wouldn't bother. And yet, we've had creative works from all of human history, despite copyright being barely a hundred or two years old, and our modern effectively-infinite conception of copyright is only now reaching 50 years old. This theory doesn't hold up to even a couple seconds of scrutiny.

I agree that, without copyright, lots of creative works would (and did!) still get created. But there are certainly some creative works that only would get created if copyright law exists. Think of a Pixar-level animated movie or Hollywood-style live action movie, that involve huge teams of people working full time for extended periods.

[Edit: just be clear, people working on side projects on their own and huge multimillion dollar projects are two extremes of a large spectrum. I chose the opposite extreme to make a point but almost everything in the middle also only exists because of copyright.]

Maybe some would still exist to some level through alternative mechanisms e.g. government or charitable funding, or a group effort akin to open source. But I think it's clear that you're talking orders of magnitude less output.

Don't forget copyright also applies to software. It's even more clear that open-source movements work for software! But it's still the case that without copyright there would be some software that wouldn't get written. Certainly, speaking personally, my software economic output would be lower if it weren't my full time job!

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

#233

Post by otrahuevada » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 7:50 PM UTC

dahart wrote: post #231

otrahuevada wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Easily duplicable cultural products? You’re suggesting that you should be able to take something someone else made because it’s easy to do? No, I'm not. What's more, that's an easily disprovable lie: My duplicating of a file does not somehow delete the original. My downloading of this page hasn't done anything to your post. > Movies often costs tens to hundreds of millions to produce, and they only take on that lev…

The argument that you’re not stealing something physical is an old, tired, immature, and naive narrative that seems willfully ignorant of the reality that copyright law is protecting the consumption of copies, it’s about protecting the initial investment and the business model, not the cost of production of individual copies. You actually are hurting the artists by consuming a copy without their permission, because t…

> The argument that you’re not stealing something physical is an old, tired, immature, and naive narrative

And yet here you are, claiming that "pirating" something is somehow bad.

Look, I think our disagreement comes down to definitions. So, let's clarify some things.

For me,

    "A thing" is an entity that is capable of being described as "being". For instance, your phone, a bottle, a trip, a word, love, inertia.

    "Good" is a desirable quality of "A thing" that by being attached to it adds to its value. 

    "Bad" on the other hand is an undesirable quality of "A thing", which detracts from it. 
    
    "Control" is the ability to do with a thing whatever I want,

    "Selling" "A thing" is relinquishing "Control" over it for money, 
    
    "Buying" "A thing" is receiving "Control" of a thing in exchange of money

    "Renting" "A thing" on the other hand is relinquishing "some" control of that thing for some time in exchange of money.
    
    "Promising" something is agreeing to do that thing; doing the thing that was agreed upon is generally considered "Good".

    "Cheating" is "Promising" "A thing" and then doing a different one, which is "Bad"
    
    "Copying" "A thing" is creating "A thing" that is fundamentally interchangeable for "Another Thing"

Given this definitions, it naturally arises that Cheating people into thinking they Bought Things when you only Rented those Things to them is Bad. Which is the entirety of my point.

For you on the other hand all of those terms ostensibly appear to mean "whatever lets me sleep at night" and it seems that this gap is bothering you a lot.

I also see you seem to be conflating your opinion on things with their legality and their moral qualities, which are three entirely disconnected things. It is legal in some countries to kill perceived deviants in a kind of ritual show. Would you call that good? Does that being "legal" make it any better?

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

#234

Post by vetinari » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 7:52 PM UTC

notreallyserio wrote: post #179

jen20 wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I definitely see them in the US. Trailers are just as unacceptable as ads.

What shows or movies have you seen trigger pre-roll ads on Netflix? I'm in the US and have never seen one.

Witcher, for example.

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

#235

Post by gruez » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 7:56 PM UTC

PickledHotdog wrote: post #220

gruez wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagree. Turning subscriptions on/off (assuming that doesn't require phoning in) seems much easier to the layperson than figuring out how to torrent something without getting viruses and/or copyright strikes.

Remembering to turn subscriptions on and off is where the pain will lie

Use reminder app on your phone?

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

#236

Post by rhino369 » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 8:02 PM UTC

coldpie wrote: post #157

quietbritishjim wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The idea is that if there's no copyright then creators would have no economic incentive to create anything, so they wouldn't bother. And yet, we've had creative works from all of human history, despite copyright being barely a hundred or two years old, and our modern effectively-infinite conception of copyright is only now reaching 50 years old. This theory doesn't hold up to even a couple seconds of scrutiny.

Obviously, we don't need copyright to have any creative works. Some people will do it for free. But the sale of copies is a huge incentive. And the result is much more creative work now than ever before--at least some types.

Pre-copyright, content was either commissioned by patrons or done by bored independently rich people. Artists didn't have some burning desire to paint rich ladies and religious works, that's just what was demanded.

We could go back to that system. But it won't be a prolific as our current system. If copyright ended for TV/movies, we'd probably get some BBC/PBS content, some indie movies, but we'd probably just have a bunch of reality TV with an insane amount of product placement.

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

#237

Post by dahart » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 8:04 PM UTC

otrahuevada wrote: post #233

dahart wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument that you’re not stealing something physical is an old, tired, immature, and naive narrative that seems willfully ignorant of the reality that copyright law is protecting the consumption of copies, it’s about protecting the initial investment and the business model, not the cost of production of individual copies. You actually are hurting the artists by consuming a copy without their permission, because t…

> The argument that you’re not stealing something physical is an old, tired, immature, and naive narrative And yet here you are, claiming that "pirating" something is somehow bad. Look, I think our disagreement comes down to definitions. So, let's clarify some things. For me, "A thing" is an entity that is capable of being described as "being". For instance, your phone, a bottle, a trip, a word, love, inertia. "Good"…

Your definitions don’t agree with the dictionary at all. It’s relevant to this discussion and important that you can sell and buy services for which you may or may not have control. I really can’t abide with crappy incorrect definitions you’ve made up on the spot that don’t agree with the ways all other people use these words. Your list of definitions here also isn’t helping clarify anything other than you’re giving me the impression that you didn’t read the actual transaction text before you paid for some online movies?

Yes, I do agree that pirating something is somehow bad. I don’t see the point you’re trying to make by quoting me. You’re going to have to state it rather than expect I can read your mind.

I don’t agree with your snarky summary of my position. What you’ve demonstrated here is that you 1) didn’t listen to and/or didn’t understand what I said but believe you do, 2) don’t understand copyright law, why it exists and what shapes it, and 3) what the boundaries and distinctions are between copyright law and DRM.

Instead of being vague, can you give some specific examples of movies you paid for where the language used in the actual transaction said you were purchasing a copy of the movie, but it ended up being a rental? I’m not aware of any streaming service that uses either of those words, but it seems like you might have expectations that are outside of what the thing being offered was. Please give an example of how you were cheated by linking to the product.

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

#238

Post by gwbas1c » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 8:05 PM UTC

krylon wrote: post #96

fxtentacle wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My take: "The purpose of DRM is to give content providers leverage against creators of playback devices and their own consumers." How have I regretted purchasing Blu-Rays in the past. They require an update to the drive firmware, they require their own GPU driver version, they require an update to the player software, and they try to sneak spyware onto my PC anyway. It is almost impossible to legally watch an authent…

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…

Not sure if this is what you want, but I occasionally "buy" a TV show from Google Play. There's no forced ads.

I mostly do it because it's cheaper than a cable subscription, and the player is easier to use than Kodi.

#239

Post by otrahuevada » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 8:07 PM UTC

dahart wrote: post #237

otrahuevada wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The argument that you’re not stealing something physical is an old, tired, immature, and naive narrative And yet here you are, claiming that "pirating" something is somehow bad. Look, I think our disagreement comes down to definitions. So, let's clarify some things. For me, "A thing" is an entity that is capable of being described as "being". For instance, your phone, a bottle, a trip, a word, love, inertia. "Good"…

Your definitions don’t agree with the dictionary at all . It’s relevant to this discussion and important that you can sell and buy services for which you may or may not have control. I really can’t abide with crappy incorrect definitions you’ve made up on the spot that don’t agree with the ways all other people use these words. Your list of definitions here also isn’t helping clarify anything other than you’re giving…

Unfortunately, if we can't agree on what words mean, I can't justify continuing to waste time in this discussion.

Cheerio!

#240

Post by peoplefromibiza » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 8:07 PM UTC

acdha wrote: post #208

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

would you download a car? theft is when you take something from someone, when you download a movie, Netflix users can still watch it, Netflix can still stream it and they don't lose anything. In fact their profits have gone up, despite helping piracy by releasing more and more content easily sharable outside of their platforms. Netflix alone made 7.5 billions in the third quarter of 2021, up from 6.4 billions in the…

> theft is when you take something from someone, Yes, such as when you use someone's creative work contrary to their express desire. Digital goods don't work the same way as physical works, it's true, but all of the people involved in making them still need to get paid. The principled, ethical stance is not to watch things you don't want to pay for. Nobody's life is impoverished by making the percentage of entertainm…

> Yes, such as when you use someone's creative work contrary to their express desire.

No, that's not theft.

That's infringement of rights.

But I speak with many artists and creators, they are more mad than me, I have a job where I get paid no matter what the result is, because they pay for my time.

they are between a rock and a stone: accept to work for these platforms and get paid shit, while they nmake billion, or don't and get paid shit, but at least own your work. Guess which way many are starting to take...

> The principled, ethical stance is not to watch things you don't want to pay for.

according to what ethical stance, exactly?

yours?

do you really think it is so relevant?

or the ethic of corporations, which is objectively something to stay way from.