Live data from Hacker News

Day Against DRM

fsf.org

31–37 of 37 posts

Re: Day Against DRM

#31
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.

You go over to O'Reilly and buy a DRM-free e-book. Now, the FSF likely won't suggest that because they don't like mentioning the existence of “non-free” documentation, but IMO one of the best ways to protest DRM is by saying, with our pocketbooks, that we want e-books and are willing to pay good money for them but find DRM unacceptable.

If Tor had gotten their DRM-free book thing in order by now, rather than waiting until July or so, I'd probably also be buying a Tor e-book today.

Re: Day Against DRM

#32
post #31
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.

You go over to O'Reilly and buy a DRM-free e-book. Now, the FSF likely won't suggest that because they don't like mentioning the existence of “non-free” documentation, but IMO one of the best ways to protest DRM is by saying, with our pocketbooks, that we want e-books and are willing to pay good money for them but find DRM unacceptable. If Tor had gotten their DRM-free book thing in order by now, rather than waiting…

This is confusing the two meanings of free that FSF tries so hard to fight. RMS doesn't care about paying for documentation (the FSF supported itself for quite some time selling docs and tapes). They care about free sharability of software, and by extension information about software. And yes, from that perspective the non-redistributable stuff from O'Reilly isn't something the FSF is interested in supporting per se.

Re: Day Against DRM

#33
post #32
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You go over to O'Reilly and buy a DRM-free e-book. Now, the FSF likely won't suggest that because they don't like mentioning the existence of “non-free” documentation, but IMO one of the best ways to protest DRM is by saying, with our pocketbooks, that we want e-books and are willing to pay good money for them but find DRM unacceptable. If Tor had gotten their DRM-free book thing in order by now, rather than waiting…

This is confusing the two meanings of free that FSF tries so hard to fight. RMS doesn't care about paying for documentation (the FSF supported itself for quite some time selling docs and tapes). They care about free sharability of software, and by extension information about software. And yes, from that perspective the non-redistributable stuff from O'Reilly isn't something the FSF is interested in supporting per se.

I tried not to confuse them, but don't seem to have done a good job.

You are correct, the non-redistributability of many O'Reilly books is what they would they would object to, not cost. And not all O'Reilly books are non-redistributable - they have a number of books under open licenses.

Re: Day Against DRM

#34
post #28
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

DRM-FREE is happening in many ways and it's a great thing. But in the music and movie industry they are leveraging streaming technologies like Netflix and Spotify to create solutions that still have DRM that just feel less intrusive then others. For E-books I think companies like O'Reilly are not only making users who are aware of DRM happy, they are taking a competitive advantage of a segmented DRM market(Nook vs Amazon vs Kobo vs whoever else) by going DRM-FREE.

Re: Day Against DRM

#35
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…

Richard Stallmann proposed a internet access tax that is distributed to producers in a cube-root function of the measured popularity (number of downloads etc.) of their works:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-copyright.html

The German Chaos Computer Club proposed a similar system using a cryptographic micropayment currency:

http://irights.info/?q=ccc-konzept-kulturwertmark

(sorry only German)

Re: Day Against DRM

#36
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…

"It's easy to point fingers, it's tough to propose meaningful solutions."

Precisely. When The Singularity (TM) comes, and all work is executed by software and robots, I can easily wrap my head around the idea that we would have no DRM, yet a vibrant creative ecosystem - after all, an artist wouldn't have to sell his wares in order to eat. The FSF position seems to amount to little more than realizing this potential future ideal, and then stubbornly insisting that we should act this way about intellectual property right now. It is completely divorced from the practical considerations of the life of h. sapien on Terra in the early twenty-first century.

I actually wrote a research paper several years ago that predicted the demise of DRM in music as the hassle of piracy vs. the cost of legitimate music consumption reached a point where it made more sense to buy a song for $0.99 than to try to torrent it. This prediction obviously came true, viz our present day Amazon and iTunes music stores. And I think that, generally speaking, so long as the cost of the media in question is below the "who cares" threshold for the mass market, DRM will be moot. The free-marketeers insist that economic progress will continually raise that threshold, theoretically straight on through to The Singularity (TM). This implies a "wait and see" approach, as one day $50 will seem like nothing for the average citizen to drop on a vidya game, which at that point will be DRM free.

Not an air tight case, but it at least has a few empirical data points in its favor. On the other hand, what the FSF has is a secular techno-liturgy that is highly seductive to a certain kind of mind - one which is very well represented in the techie parts of the world. I'm as guilty of that as anybody. I remember being 17 and voraciously reading and espousing every iota of output from the GNU crew. I /facepalm about that now, but c'est la vie. Perhaps this is just our demographic's homologue for The Communist Manifesto - a phase that everyone goes through, but that some never leave.

Re: Day Against DRM

#37
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.

Large businesses including publishers rarely base their decisions on ethical principles — businesses are done for profit. It is the consumer's responsibility to punish them for unethical behaviour. So we should be responsible consumers, and we should not buy any DRM-infected content or software no matter how useful it is from a pragmatic standpoint. Every purchase is a vote.
Post reply on HN