DRM Is Toxic to Culture • Hacker News Board

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#111

Post by scrollaway » Sun, Jul 09, 2017, 5:11 PM UTC

pdkl95 wrote: post #94

type0 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The physical book comparison is interesting. Imagine there would be a way to publish physical books with DRM that all publishers would embrace. You open such a book without authorization and it's all gibberish. To read it you would need to have bought a special strip that you lay over the pages in order to read (don't matter the technical aspect, it's gedanken-experiment so let's consider such a strip magic for now).…

RMS has been warning[1] about that specific problem for decades. Unfortunately, very few people listened. Now we have the additional problem of people already giving up property rights for shiny digital baubles. -sigh- [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html

I'm getting a little exhausted in every thread about DRM and the likes to read about how "people don't listen to RMS". People don't listen to RMS because he makes no effort to be listened to and constantly takes absolutist stances which only harm what he defends.

In the case of DRM, many people have been talking about this problem for a long time. It's not a matter of consumers not listening, it's a matter of alternatives not developing in the market.

DRM in video games is a lesser problem as alternatives did develop. Steam, the #1 platform, doesn't enforce DRM. GOG and Humble Bundle have been running their platforms on mostly DRM-free games.

Who do you fault for alternatives not developing/not catching on in the ebooks/video world? Consumers for making the wrong choices? Companies for not trying hard enough? Governments for not regulating consumer rights?

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#112

Post by Silhouette » Sun, Jul 09, 2017, 5:16 PM UTC

jasonkostempski wrote: post #106

zanny wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say you can do whatever you want with a physical book, but you cannot - you are still restricted by the state from making copies of that book. You cannot take passages from that book and reuse them as your own, unless given permission by the author. It is still not wholly your own property. It depends on the mires of the draconian copyright system, but there are things I can buy and then duplicate - if I buy a ge…

"you are still restricted by the state from making copies of that book" Is that true or can you just not sell the copies? "You cannot take passages from that book and reuse them as your own, unless given permission by the author." Again, pretty sure that's only when selling things.

It depends on where you are. In the US, some activities like this might fall under fair use, and therefore be legal. In much of the rest of the first world, the ways in which you can copy or share a work under copyright are specifically listed in the laws, and the mere act of making the copy might itself be an infringement. However, also in those places outside the US, non-commercial infringement is typically a civil matter and you'd only be on the hook for actual damages, which might be zero or close to it in the cases you described anyway.

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#113

Post by narrator » Sun, Jul 09, 2017, 5:16 PM UTC

pdkl95 wrote: post #94

type0 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The physical book comparison is interesting. Imagine there would be a way to publish physical books with DRM that all publishers would embrace. You open such a book without authorization and it's all gibberish. To read it you would need to have bought a special strip that you lay over the pages in order to read (don't matter the technical aspect, it's gedanken-experiment so let's consider such a strip magic for now).…

RMS has been warning[1] about that specific problem for decades. Unfortunately, very few people listened. Now we have the additional problem of people already giving up property rights for shiny digital baubles. -sigh- [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html

There's a whole subreddit devoted to Stallman's correct predictions:

http://reddit.com/r/stallmanwasright

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#114

Post by emondi » Sun, Jul 09, 2017, 5:17 PM UTC

AlphaWeaver wrote: post #40

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would say that DRM is merely an inevitable outgrowth of our society's enshrinement and worship of the idea of "intellectual property". If intellectual property rights cease to exist, then there's no longer any legal basis to enforce the GPL and similar licenses and the Free Software ecosystem would collapse. Are you sure you want that? EDIT: Replaced "open source" with "Free Software". My thanks to other posters…

If intellectual property rights ceased to exist, we wouldn't have a need for the GPL, wouldn't we?

This is an interesting analysis of software freedom without copyright http://culturalliberty.org/blog/index.php?id=278 Basically GPL would not be needed to restore a freedom which would no longer be restricted.

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#115

Post by harryh » Sun, Jul 09, 2017, 5:17 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #85

I disagree with the characterization of all this media as "culture." They're entertainment products that exist for the sole purpose of generating a profit.

Shakespeare didn't write all those plays for free.

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#116

Post by Silhouette » Sun, Jul 09, 2017, 5:23 PM UTC

panic wrote: post #44

izacus wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get this - why is DRM is friggning' NECESSARY? What makes it this forced law of nature? The current multi-billion media conglomerates grew at times when being able to copy a piece of content from TV was encoded in the LAW. Content providers earned billions of dollars at times when you could press REC on your VCR and ("THE HORROR" now every content provider shill screams) rewatch the show many times and ( GASP…

Music downloads are largely DRM-free these days, but piracy is still as low as ever. It really is just powerful media companies abusing their power to make a little more money.

A legitimate copy of a new hit single costs like $1, though.

Not exactly the same for anyone whose work normally costs $50 or $5,000 because it's more expensive to produce or has a more specialised market.

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#117

Post by abecedarius » Sun, Jul 09, 2017, 5:31 PM UTC

ctulek wrote: post #67

My only concern with DRM in browser is that, as far as I understand the technology, any website can put a small piece of arbitrary DRM content and your browser will send information to that website uniq to your device, and your device will be tracked by DRM providers and probably also by that website. Firefox gives you the option to disable DRM in the settings. Chrome also has it but it is buried deeply in advanced s…

I think I found this as "Protected Content" in the Chrome advanced settings. (Searching for "DRM" didn't work.)

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#118

Post by izacus » Sun, Jul 09, 2017, 5:41 PM UTC

eastWestMath wrote: post #105

izacus wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. Why is that acceptable state of affairs? Remember, we have a law that essentially tells everyone that lending / selling your DVD is legal. Why isn't there such a law for digital content? Why can I sell a Die Hard DVD but not a Die Hard movie file?

Because there's a difference between owning a physical copy of media and owning the rights to distribute it.

Why do we let that difference exist? You're trying to lead the debate about changing laws by quoting laws.

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#119

Post by DonbunEf7 » Sun, Jul 09, 2017, 5:53 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #85

I disagree with the characterization of all this media as "culture." They're entertainment products that exist for the sole purpose of generating a profit.

Welcome to your modern culture, which is centered around neoliberal consumerism.

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#120

Post by scarface74 » Sun, Jul 09, 2017, 6:02 PM UTC

The usual spiel about DRM is that you don't own what you "bought" but in the case of subscriptions and rentals, why would anyone think they have a right to ownership when they are clearly paying for access?

Why should I have a problem with paying Apple for DRM free music from iTunes and paying for a subscription to DRMd music for Apple Music?

I haven't pirated music since the iTunes Store opened in 2003. Even from 2003-2008 when it was DRM encumbered, there was a simple built in way to remove the DRM -- burn it to a CD and rip it.

I also don't have a problem paying to rent a movie from Apple/Amazon, but I would never "buy" a movie from Apple/Amazon with restrictive DRM. I also wouldn't have thought about buying a physical disk without an easy way to rip it to my Plex Server and use in the way I see fit.