Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Day Against DRM

fsf.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 37 posts

Re: Day Against DRM

#21

Post by Rudism »

MaxGabriel wrote: post #16

Recently I've been researching autonomous cars, and I haven't explored this idea much, but could DRM have a role in preventing users from modifying the software that drives their car, or other life-and-death scenarios? Like I said, it's just an inkling at this point, any thoughts?

I think in issues of public safety like that, it would be more a matter of law and not digital rights. Tinting your windows too dark, cutting a brake line, or adding distracting lights to the exterior are all ways to modify your car that are illegal (where I live, at least), so there's really no need to have other protective measures against that built into the car. I'd suspect driving software modifications would be treated similarly, with DRM or some similar system mainly being used to detect the illegal modifications as opposed to trying too hard to prevent them.

Re: Day Against DRM

#22

Post by mkr-hn »

bmelton wrote: post #17
mkr-hn wrote: post #6

This press release sounds like a declaration of war on content creators. You won't kill DRM by tut-tutting it. You kill DRM by changing the minds of content creators who use it. You won't do that by waging a war on them. What does one do to participate in this anyway? The press release wasn't clear.

While I don't disagree with the point, we are actually not declaring war on content creators , but on content rights-holders . I'm just guessing, but I would suppose that the majority of cases in which DRM was applied to a product was done so by a middle-man, e.g., Sony Records, not Lady Gaga. Showing more of my ignorance on the subject, does anyone know if the content-producers are even consulted on whether or not t…

"We launched your career, handle all the hard work, and give you the freedom to create. We need DRM to keep doing this."

The rights holders have a very compelling argument from the perspective of a creator. How do you convince someone DRM is bad when the person showering them in money and fame is telling them it's good?

Re: Day Against DRM

#23

Post by JoshTriplett »

aspir wrote: post #14

I would take posts like this from the FSF more seriously if they proposed or endorsed a solution, rather than simply proposing a protest. FSF may claim to be about "Free as in Speech, rather than Free as in Beer," but DRM straddles both of these points. Yes, we're restricted in the products that can utilize DRM files, but DRM also exists to protect ownership rights. Its a complex system, and one that can't simply be…

> protect the rights of both the creator and end user

Take a look at https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.htm... . The FSF holds a consistent position on this: "copyright privileges can be justified only in the name of the readers, never in the name of the publishers"; in other words, we permit limited copyright restrictions because we want more works produced, and that represents a tradeoff. The same thing applies to DRM: tolerating DRM means we might get a few more works produced (though widespread evidence would seem to suggest otherwise), but we lose a lot of rights over those works. That tradeoff doesn't seem worth it.

Re: Day Against DRM

#25

Post by aspir »

samdk wrote: post #20
aspir wrote: post #14

I would take posts like this from the FSF more seriously if they proposed or endorsed a solution, rather than simply proposing a protest. FSF may claim to be about "Free as in Speech, rather than Free as in Beer," but DRM straddles both of these points. Yes, we're restricted in the products that can utilize DRM files, but DRM also exists to protect ownership rights. Its a complex system, and one that can't simply be…

[DRM] can't simply be "abolished" without some suitable alternative to protects both interests. It can be and in the music industry largely has been. iTunes has no DRM. Amazon's mp3 store has no DRM. Bandcamp has no DRM. The solution is getting rid of DRM. DRM does not prevent people intent on pirating their media from doing whatever they want. It hurts legitimate users. The existence of DRM has nothing to do with pr…

In my earlier post I was referring to publishers -- they are partial owners on the content.

I agree that their business models need an overhaul, but simply pointing a finger from afar, and telling these entrenched organizations to change won't get far. These industries are too big and entreneched to just dies either. The most practical answer is to have some sort of compromise.

It'll be hard to go back to pre-DRM, too. You can't unshift a paradigm like DRM for big media

Re: Day Against DRM

#26

Post by lloeki »

MaxGabriel wrote: post #16

Recently I've been researching autonomous cars, and I haven't explored this idea much, but could DRM have a role in preventing users from modifying the software that drives their car, or other life-and-death scenarios? Like I said, it's just an inkling at this point, any thoughts?

People are somehow prevented by law to modify their car from hardware to software already. In most countries, changing your intake or doing an ECU remap is less dramatic than bolting on a turbo on a NA car but it is nonetheless exactly the same: your car is no longer complying to characteristics from when it was homologated. Therefore if you do so you can basically only drive it in your backyard and not on public roads, unless you take on you (and your wallet and patience) to have those modifications homologated as a special case.

Re: Day Against DRM

#27

Post by billsix »

aspir wrote: post #14

I would take posts like this from the FSF more seriously if they proposed or endorsed a solution, rather than simply proposing a protest. FSF may claim to be about "Free as in Speech, rather than Free as in Beer," but DRM straddles both of these points. Yes, we're restricted in the products that can utilize DRM files, but DRM also exists to protect ownership rights. Its a complex system, and one that can't simply be…

There are lots of theories and examples of alternatives to DRM that protect the rights of both the creator and end user.

Such as?

Re: Day Against DRM

#28

Post by samdk »

aspir wrote: post #25
samdk wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[DRM] can't simply be "abolished" without some suitable alternative to protects both interests. It can be and in the music industry largely has been. iTunes has no DRM. Amazon's mp3 store has no DRM. Bandcamp has no DRM. The solution is getting rid of DRM. DRM does not prevent people intent on pirating their media from doing whatever they want. It hurts legitimate users. The existence of DRM has nothing to do with pr…

In my earlier post I was referring to publishers -- they are partial owners on the content. I agree that their business models need an overhaul, but simply pointing a finger from afar, and telling these entrenched organizations to change won't get far. These industries are too big and entreneched to just dies either. The most practical answer is to have some sort of compromise. It'll be hard to go back to pre-DRM, to…

    You can't unshift a paradigm like DRM for big media
Yes, you can.

DRM was pervasive in the music industry. It no longer is. DRM was pervasive in the ebook industry. We are beginning to see signs from publishers (Tor books being the most recent example) of a willingness to sell ebooks without DRM. "DRM-free" has become a selling point for smaller companies in the games industry.

It is not easy, and it is not fast, but it is possible, and it is happening.

Re: Day Against DRM

#29

Post by mkr-hn »

rrreese wrote: post #18
aspir wrote: post #14

I would take posts like this from the FSF more seriously if they proposed or endorsed a solution, rather than simply proposing a protest. FSF may claim to be about "Free as in Speech, rather than Free as in Beer," but DRM straddles both of these points. Yes, we're restricted in the products that can utilize DRM files, but DRM also exists to protect ownership rights. Its a complex system, and one that can't simply be…

Very true, especially as the FSF has been so instrumental in creating and encouraging the creation of free software. While the FSF have "been against" non free software they have at least helped provide the alternative. In the case of DRM, not so much.

GPL and other licenses are the alternative. The only functional difference between a license and DRM is that enforcement is in the hands of the rights holders until the DRM is broken. GPL is hoping no one steals it. DRM is trying to keep people from stealing it until you make enough to cover expenses and some profit.

Law is the fallback for both.

Re: Day Against DRM

#30

Post by bad_user »

mkr-hn wrote: post #22
bmelton wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I don't disagree with the point, we are actually not declaring war on content creators , but on content rights-holders . I'm just guessing, but I would suppose that the majority of cases in which DRM was applied to a product was done so by a middle-man, e.g., Sony Records, not Lady Gaga. Showing more of my ignorance on the subject, does anyone know if the content-producers are even consulted on whether or not t…

"We launched your career, handle all the hard work, and give you the freedom to create. We need DRM to keep doing this." The rights holders have a very compelling argument from the perspective of a creator. How do you convince someone DRM is bad when the person showering them in money and fame is telling them it's good?

By educating them.
Post reply on HN