DRM Is Toxic to Culture • Hacker News Board

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#121

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

scrollaway wrote: post #111

pdkl95 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 alterna…

Stallman's a philosopher, so his precision and consistency in how he interprets the digital world is actually mandatory.

Do you know the time limits for how long your games can run in Steam's offline mode?

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#122

Post by eropple » Sun, Jul 09, 2017, 6:13 PM UTC

musesum wrote: post #89

Some background: I developed a software binary sandbox, in the 90's; patent cited 500+ times ... mostly by developers of DRM. Now, I am working on an open source project. IMO, DRM extends a presumption of scarcity. Hunters share their meat, whereas farmers guard their harvest. For the hunter, the kill is a short term abundance of value; if it isn't shared, it will spoil. For the farmer, the harvest is a long term sto…

> Freely copied recorded music shifted the value back to live concerts.

Overall, I get what you're saying and I don't disagree with the premise (though I'm ambivalent about the conclusion), but the word "shifted" doesn't usually mean "eradicated"--most live concerts net vanishingly little money and that's a real impact on creators. Whether that's a net societal good or not can be argued about, but "shifted", IMO, paints a misleading picture.

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#123

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC » Sun, Jul 09, 2017, 6:13 PM UTC

scrollaway wrote: post #111

pdkl95 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 alterna…

> People don't listen to RMS because he makes no effort to be listened to

So ... you should only take advice from people who put in extra effort to specifically reach you?

> constantly takes absolutist stances

The concept of an absolutist stance as an accusation is nonsense, as it's orthogonal to whether it's right. If you are not willing to compromise on slavery, you are taking an absolutist stance. So should people have fought for only partial slavery in order to not harm what they defended?

> Governments for not regulating consumer rights?

How about governments not destroying consumer rights by making it illegal to understand how your own computer works?

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#124

Post by comex » Sun, Jul 09, 2017, 6:14 PM UTC

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #49

0xcde4c3db wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Beyond that, one can't be against DRM and for GPL enforcement at the same time and remain logically consistent. One can absolutely do that. Technical restraints and legal remedies are not the same thing, and it's completely consistent to say that DRM should be unavailable to both proprietary and free works while legal remedies should be available to both.

> Technical restraints and legal remedies are not the same thing, and it's completely consistent to say that DRM should be unavailable to both proprietary and free works while legal remedies should be available to both. "legal remedies should be available to both" was tried for media; that was the era where the studios were suing individuals for copyright violations. Needless to say, that proved to be impractical for…

Your argument only works if technical restraints are (a) necessary and (b) effective. If they’re not necessary, i.e. rightsholders can profit without needing to “enforce their rights” either legally or technically, then the limited effectiveness of lawsuits against individuals is not the end of the world. (This doesn’t contradict a belief that legal relief should be available in principle, and in any case, it is available in practice against large-scale or commercial operations.) On the other hand, if technical restraints aren’t effective, then rightsholders gain little by imposing them, and lose little by removing them. Thus, even under the assumption that piracy is a huge cost and can’t be solved without technical restraints, it wouldn’t be inconsistent to advocate banning them, because piracy couldn’t be solved with them either!

In fact, there’s a good argument that DRM is neither necessary nor effective: the former as demonstrated by the music industry, the latter as demonstrated by the movie industry (where the availability of new releases on torrent sites is a matter of course, as it has been for many years). True, it’s more complicated than that, as both technical and market factors greatly affect the utility of DRM in any specific situation. But as a general principle…

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#125

Post by thaumasiotes » Sun, Jul 09, 2017, 6:16 PM UTC

izacus wrote: post #118

eastWestMath wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For a lot of people, the law is a source of morality. Whatever it says is desirable by definition.

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#126

Post by 0xbear » Sun, Jul 09, 2017, 6:20 PM UTC

eropple wrote: post #122

musesum wrote: post #89

Some background: I developed a software binary sandbox, in the 90's; patent cited 500+ times ... mostly by developers of DRM. Now, I am working on an open source project. IMO, DRM extends a presumption of scarcity. Hunters share their meat, whereas farmers guard their harvest. For the hunter, the kill is a short term abundance of value; if it isn't shared, it will spoil. For the farmer, the harvest is a long term sto…

> Freely copied recorded music shifted the value back to live concerts. Overall, I get what you're saying and I don't disagree with the premise (though I'm ambivalent about the conclusion), but the word "shifted" doesn't usually mean "eradicated"--most live concerts net vanishingly little money and that's a real impact on creators. Whether that's a net societal good or not can be argued about, but "shifted", IMO, pai…

Most other distribution methods for those artists have also been shown to net vanishingly little money. If you can't make money with a live performance, you sure as heck aren't making any selling CDs through a record company.

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#127

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC » Sun, Jul 09, 2017, 6:21 PM UTC

Silhouette wrote: post #109

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> set up their own redistribution channels and steal your customers and your revenues. And DRM prevents that how exactly? > A third lesson you will learn is that a lot of people may quite innocently assume that if they can do something then it's allowed I would take this as a hint that it probably should be allowed then. If lots of people innocently assume that something is perfectly legal, the way of tyranny is to b…

And DRM prevents that how exactly? It depends on the form of DRM and its effects. One practical scenario is that most of the revenue from a new work may be generated in the early days. This is often the case with things like computer games, pop music, and big ticket movies. If DRM delays those trying to set up copycat channels, even by a few days or weeks, much of that revenue may already have been collected. Another…

> Democracy only works when the population is properly informed and understands the implications. That's hardly the case in the sort of situation I mentioned above.

And so we install draconian enforcement technology in everyone's home ... in order to make people more informed on the issue?

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#128

Post by gordaco » Sun, Jul 09, 2017, 6:30 PM UTC

cygned wrote: post #65

Lately, I wanted to buy an eBook. I usually buy prints, but this time I needed it as soon as possible. Upon searching, every book store told me, I would need to install some Adobe stuff on my computer to read the file. I am neither a fan of Adobe nor of the idea of being locked in to an application to view a book. After realizing that there is no other digital way, I simply bought the printed version and waited the t…

I was in the same position a few months ago, and there was no printed version. My solution: pay for the damn book, use the required Adobe product to be able to unlock it, use a tool to create a DRM-free pdf (IIRC it was Calibre), and finally unistalling the Adobe product. I wish I didn't have to give money to DRM sellers, but in this particular choice I had no option.

Apparently this makes me a pirate, despite having paid for the product and not having any intention of releasing it.

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#129

Post by RandomOpinion » Sun, Jul 09, 2017, 6:34 PM UTC

zanny wrote: post #101

samastur wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free software might collapse, but open source certainly would not especially since so much of it is under MIT and similar licenses which already allow anyone to do pretty much whatever with that code.

Free software would not go anywhere. The only difference is, without a right to repair law for software in a post-IP world, people writing software may or may not choose to withhold source code. But the trick is anyone who ever gets that source code can (unless under an NDA or contract not to) distribute it all they want. And the receivers of software will be able to distribute it however they want. The profit motive…

> ...all it takes is one leak to end your monopoly

I don't know about that. Most significant software packages require ongoing maintenance (bug fixes, security patches, compatibility with other software) and add new features over time. A one-time leak certainly would be damaging but not necessarily fatal since most businesses want to have assured support and upgrades.

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#130

Post by musesum » Sun, Jul 09, 2017, 6:35 PM UTC

eropple wrote: post #122

musesum wrote: post #89

Some background: I developed a software binary sandbox, in the 90's; patent cited 500+ times ... mostly by developers of DRM. Now, I am working on an open source project. IMO, DRM extends a presumption of scarcity. Hunters share their meat, whereas farmers guard their harvest. For the hunter, the kill is a short term abundance of value; if it isn't shared, it will spoil. For the farmer, the harvest is a long term sto…

> Freely copied recorded music shifted the value back to live concerts. Overall, I get what you're saying and I don't disagree with the premise (though I'm ambivalent about the conclusion), but the word "shifted" doesn't usually mean "eradicated"--most live concerts net vanishingly little money and that's a real impact on creators. Whether that's a net societal good or not can be argued about, but "shifted", IMO, pai…

Live music exceeds the revenue of the top 2 music publishers, Universal and Sony, as per: http://variety.com/2017/music/features/live-nation-concert-b...

[Addendum] For a perspective on independent musicians, here's Steve Albini: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/nov/17/steve-albinis-...