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

271–276 of 276 posts

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

#271

Post by acdha »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #269
acdha wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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... Again, I'm not saying that the current situation is great but if you were really concerned about artists being fairly compensated you would not take the action which results in them not getting paid.…

> Again, I'm not saying that the current situation is great but if you were really concerned about artists being fairly compensated you would not take the action which results in them not getting paid. Are you saying that if I ask an artist to make a painting for me and the painting get stolen AFTER they made it, I am allowed to not pay the artist? That's a really strange POV. Media companies should pay artists, not…

> Are you saying that if I ask an artist to make a painting for me and the painting get stolen AFTER they made it, I am allowed to not pay the artist?

That’s not the situation being discussed. What you’re arguing is more along the lines that it’s okay to sneak into a concert because you don’t like the guy selling tickets.

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

#272

Post by peoplefromibiza »

acdha wrote: post #271
peoplefromibiza wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Again, I'm not saying that the current situation is great but if you were really concerned about artists being fairly compensated you would not take the action which results in them not getting paid. Are you saying that if I ask an artist to make a painting for me and the painting get stolen AFTER they made it, I am allowed to not pay the artist? That's a really strange POV. Media companies should pay artists, not…

> Are you saying that if I ask an artist to make a painting for me and the painting get stolen AFTER they made it, I am allowed to not pay the artist? That’s not the situation being discussed. What you’re arguing is more along the lines that it’s okay to sneak into a concert because you don’t like the guy selling tickets.

> What you’re arguing is more along the lines that it’s okay to sneak into a concert because you don’t like the guy selling tickets.

Not at all.

I'm arguing that you could listen to an unofficial bootleg if you don't like the guy selling tickets.

If you want to help the band, you can buy their merch from the stand.

If people working for large media companies had a merchandise stand, I would buy it, if I liked what they do.

Most of my friends are artists, writers, comic writers, painters, musicians, director, actors etc.

I've worked in the music business for a long time myself

What my friends say is that people working for streaming services today have lost the status of artists, they are employee of those companies and are doing a job, it's the company's responsibility to pay their salaries, they are not interacting with the audience anymore, they are not gifting the World with their creations, they are making products.

Just like coders who work at Adobe.

Do they mind if someone installs a cracked copy of Photoshop?

No, they do not.

Why should they?

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

#273

Post by tomc1985 »

swagasaurus-rex wrote: post #203
tomc1985 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> DRM is a bandaid whose need arises from trying to apply traditional economic models (of buying and selling physical, tangible things) to digital assets that never wear out and cost /essentially/ nothing to duplicate and distribute We need to embrace the digital model, not fight it. Detach ownership and control from the output, there are plenty of business models that work when the product is freely reproduceable. B…

Most of the examples of a free business model I can think of are built on advertising, which also requires control of the playback devices to prevent you from skipping them.

Advertising, merchandising, value-added services, free-to-play monetization, performances, or experiences

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

#274

Post by tenebrisalietum »

dbrueck wrote: post #249
tenebrisalietum wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, you have no inherent right to the creator's work at all, so consider it one of the terms of the agreement in which you get access to the content and the creator gets some form of compensation True and a creator has no inherent right to my physical property or location info. If I hear a song over public airwaves and record it, or download it from a consenting party using bandwidth I pay for, the fact that I'm…

> The sustainable path is commission-based works which could extend to patronage I'd be curious to see how this would play out - maybe it'd be great, I dunno. I do wonder, though, if approaches like this discourage people from paying and instead encourages hedging their bets to see if everyone else pays. For example, if there is a Kickstarter for a movie idea you find interesting, but you know that once the movie is…

> I do wonder, though, if approaches like this discourage people from paying and instead encourages hedging their bets to see if everyone else pays.

Possibly, but for the people who really want it, they'll pay, and exactly two entities should be controlling this whole apparatus - the people who want it and the creators, not advertising or bloated-overhead distribution pyramids. If it doesn't work out, it doesn't.

No, it's not going to produce the same volume of output as mass-market music, movies and TV that we have currently.

Some people who are very passive media consumers may miss the old days and refuse to consume media that isn't handed to them on a silver platter, but the old days are dying anyway. US culture could be fracturing to the point where mass-market movies and TV may be impossible, something that was really obvious at least in music in the early 90's.

> Similarly, without any content control, there is little incentive for anyone to sign up for streaming services

This is only true if the experience is much worse than torrents, filesharing programs etc. and if people know someone who can get that in their preferred viewing/listening format. If there were no such thing as music copyright I'd still pay for a service where I can have a guarantee of getting specific music I want rather than rely on the goodwill of someone with that song to be connected on a p2p network.

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

#275

Post by kingcharles »

shmerl wrote: post #263
kingcharles wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We, as a company, interacted with people at every level of these labels. We had regular meetings all the way to the top. For the most part though, the staff were universally non-technical. They loved music, knew music, but their technical infrastructure was fairly limited. We had to rip CDs (250,000 of them) like everyone else because they didn't have any of their data in any easily accessible form. There was never a…

I guess sometimes lack of common sense is indeed the reason. But I suspect that's not the most widespread case. Here is an interesting related story: https://www.gog.com/forum/general/introducing_gogcom_drmfree...

Thanks. Sounds like the same resistance we met. I'll be honest, we didn't fight hard enough to get rid of the DRM. We had to fight really, really hard just to let the labels put the music online at all. They didn't want to cut into their CD sales and they thought CDs were forever. The only way we got meetings was by taking a celebrity musician with us (Peter Gabriel) who could open the door to any label.

Once we'd opened the door to each label, Apple would breeze in right behind us and find no resistance. Later they used the Cult of Jobs as their leverage to get rid of DRM on their downloads. It looks like DRM is creeping back in again to their lossless and Atmos downloads now Jobs is no longer around to use his muscle to keep the labels honest. It's like an addiction for them, they can't stay away from it.

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

#276

Post by echelon »

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…

The future is kids using Unreal Engine (or similar) and making a high definition "retelling" of the new Spiderman movie hours after its release, injecting their own humor and style into the process.

Just as kids now watch other people playing games, they'll soon watch other people acting out movies. Kids make Star Wars at home. Kids make Star Wars meets Godzilla at home. The possibilities are endless, and Hollywood won't be able to keep up.

Post reply on HN