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

DRM Is Toxic to Culture

meshedinsights.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 263 posts

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#141

Post by bo1024 »

jdormit wrote: post #135
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the really weird part is that while the propaganda puts it as "protecting property", it really has exactly the opposite effect. When you buy a physical book, that book is indeed your property, and you can do with it whatever you want. Now, with DRM-infested ebooks, you are actually just licensing it for very restricted use. You might as well be claiming that making private home ownership illegal would strengthen…

A better analogy would be to landlords rights vs. renters rights. DRM sets conceptually equivalent restrictions on protected media as leases set on rented property. The difference, of course, is that it is very hard/impossible to break the restrictions set by DRM, whereas the restrictions set by leases are hard to enforce. The problem that I see is that the language around DRM needs to change - you aren't buying that…

I disagree with your premise, which makes the error pointed out in above posts -- accepting the idea of "intellectual property" as though it were analogous to physical property.

But the reality is that there is no such thing as "owning" a copyrightable work of expression like Bob Dylan's lyrics. Instead, some people have temporary legal control over who may copy those lyrics and for what purpose. There is no moral or legal sense in which someone else "owns" those words on the page in front of me and I am not in any way "leasing" or "borrowing" the words. However, they may still try to restrict what I can do with those words.

So DRM is about technologically limiting others' rights, usually in some way above and beyond legal limitations. For example, if you buy a DVD, you legally have the right to make copies for personal use, or e.g. use 30 seconds of footage in your own work of art. But DRM may prevent you from exercising those rights.

However, I completely agree that it is misleading of companies to use the word "buy" when what you're acquiring remains under their control, not yours.

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#142

Post by jdormit »

bo1024 wrote: post #141
jdormit wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A better analogy would be to landlords rights vs. renters rights. DRM sets conceptually equivalent restrictions on protected media as leases set on rented property. The difference, of course, is that it is very hard/impossible to break the restrictions set by DRM, whereas the restrictions set by leases are hard to enforce. The problem that I see is that the language around DRM needs to change - you aren't buying that…

I disagree with your premise, which makes the error pointed out in above posts -- accepting the idea of "intellectual property" as though it were analogous to physical property. But the reality is that there is no such thing as "owning" a copyrightable work of expression like Bob Dylan's lyrics. Instead, some people have temporary legal control over who may copy those lyrics and for what purpose. There is no moral or…

Yeah, "ownership" isn't really what's at stake here. I guess, "consumption" would be a better term? DRM limits the ways in which consumers' can consume media - specifically, it enforces copyright.

I think we are on the same page about the questionable moral standing of copyright for digital artifacts.

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#143

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

jdormit wrote: post #135
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the really weird part is that while the propaganda puts it as "protecting property", it really has exactly the opposite effect. When you buy a physical book, that book is indeed your property, and you can do with it whatever you want. Now, with DRM-infested ebooks, you are actually just licensing it for very restricted use. You might as well be claiming that making private home ownership illegal would strengthen…

A better analogy would be to landlords rights vs. renters rights. DRM sets conceptually equivalent restrictions on protected media as leases set on rented property. The difference, of course, is that it is very hard/impossible to break the restrictions set by DRM, whereas the restrictions set by leases are hard to enforce. The problem that I see is that the language around DRM needs to change - you aren't buying that…

> DRM sets conceptually equivalent restrictions on protected media as leases set on rented property.

Not even remotely.

At best, copyright law sets conceptually equivalent restrictions on licensed works as leases set on rented property.

DRM sets conceptually equivalent restrictions on infested media as a gun-wielding robot that's installed in rented property with cameras in every corner that feed into the robot and with all of that remote-controlled by the landlord would set restrictions on your use of the rented property. Oh, and also, it's a criminal offense to try to do anything that would hinder the robot in doing its job.

> So DRM is protecting property

Just as a ban on private home ownership would be protecting property, yes. But not of the people that the propaganda is directed at.

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#144

Post by icebraining »

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #68
coldtea wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> True, but they still kept earning billions through peak global torrents distribution Isn't that kind of irrelevant though? Whether a business still makes money is not an argument as to whether torrenting their stuff would be OK. A physical business (e.g. clothes store) might make millions even though people steal stuff, but we wouldn't consider that as making stealing OK. (And I don't care for the "copying is not s…

> Whether a business still makes money is not an argument as to whether torrenting their stuff would be OK. But it should be in whether or not we spend lots of resources in helping them to increase their profits further. > A physical business (e.g. clothes store) might make millions even though people steal stuff, but we wouldn't consider that as making stealing OK. But at the same time we also don't attempt to preve…

Playing devil's advocate, is a lot of tax money spent on protecting copyright? Aren't most infringers "caught" by private companies hired by the industry, who then send DMCA takedowns, letters to ISPs and file civil lawsuit?

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#145

Post by dTal »

pharrington wrote: post #121
scrollaway wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's the other way around. Stallman started as a software engineer. His mandatory radical consistency is what makes him a philosopher.

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#146

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

jdormit wrote: post #142
bo1024 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with your premise, which makes the error pointed out in above posts -- accepting the idea of "intellectual property" as though it were analogous to physical property. But the reality is that there is no such thing as "owning" a copyrightable work of expression like Bob Dylan's lyrics. Instead, some people have temporary legal control over who may copy those lyrics and for what purpose. There is no moral or…

Yeah, "ownership" isn't really what's at stake here. I guess, "consumption" would be a better term? DRM limits the ways in which consumers' can consume media - specifically, it enforces copyright. I think we are on the same page about the questionable moral standing of copyright for digital artifacts.

> DRM limits the ways in which consumers' can consume media - specifically, it enforces copyright.

No, it doesn't. Copyright has concepts such as fair use. DRM does not enforce fair use.

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#147

Post by anigbrowl »

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #41
skywhopper wrote: post #26

I would say that DRM is merely an inevitable outgrowth of our society's enshrinement and worship of the idea of "intellectual property". That word, "property", gives the opposite connotations of "copyright"--permanent rightful ownership vs a temporary grant of monopoly on an idea. But yes, it's definitely the case that the cultural idea that humans and corporations have the right to own a copyright for a length of ti…

And the really weird part is that while the propaganda puts it as "protecting property", it really has exactly the opposite effect. When you buy a physical book, that book is indeed your property, and you can do with it whatever you want. Now, with DRM-infested ebooks, you are actually just licensing it for very restricted use. You might as well be claiming that making private home ownership illegal would strengthen…

That's all true, but these analyses always seem to skate over the fact that the copyright system exists because without it it's hard for authors to get paid. Don't talk to me about a world free of intellectual property rights unless you can also offer practical suggestions for what creative people are supposed to live on while they're working. Regrettably, the cult of celebrity has blinded people to the fact that cultural work requires as much time and effort as any other variety.

A good place to start the analysis would be an assumption that all software is freely copyable, so suddenly nobody wants to pay for any of it other than for bespoke purposes. Consider how projects like NumPy and so on are only now getting funding after becoming so widely used that people are dependent on them and it takes a threat to retire from further work on it to make people put their hands in their pockets.

If you're against copyright, then you need to be for something like a basic income and universal service availability, to create the conditions in which creativity has an opportunity to flourish free of market pressures. Otherwise you're just saying you want media to be free as in beer. The biggest barrier to creativity is not the inability to iterate on existing work. People already do that, it's fun and some of the results are great, but innovation is more complex than that.

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#148

Post by floatboth »

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.

Everything is culture.

But yeah, the stuff produced by copyright mafia/Big Entertainment/Hollywood/whatever is far, far from the only culture that exists.

A lot of culture is happening on DRM-free places like YouTube, Vimeo, SoundCloud, Bandcamp, DeviantART, Tumblr, itch.io, etc.

Especially YouTube. It's huge. And it's full of people who download other videos and remix them in interesting ways.

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#149

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

Silhouette wrote: post #133
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Who said anything about draconian measures? Most modern DRM is almost completely transparent to legitimate users, particularly the technologies used with rental models rather than permanent purchases (where as I've said elsewhere I think both the ethics and practicalities are somewhat different). It's easy to snipe from the cheap seats, so let me ask you some questions now instead. Do you believe that financial model…

> Who said anything about draconian measures?

DRM is a draconian measure, by necessity.

> Most modern DRM is almost completely transparent to legitimate users

What do you mean by that and how is it relevant?

> Do you believe that financial models other than a complete, permanent purchase of a copy of a work are useful?

Maybe.

> And if so, how would you propose to set up a realistic rental/library/PPV scheme for digital content without relying on anything that could be called DRM?

By just leaving out the DRM?

Re: DRM Is Toxic to Culture

#150

Post by icebraining »

Retric wrote: post #108
barrkel wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can say that, but I don't think the price levels of current media (particularly digital media) are set to maximize profit. I think they're set to embed an idea of high value, and I'm uncertain of the purpose. It could be for legal reasons, prestige, accounting, I'm not sure. I recently got an Amazon Fire stick, attached to a projector, after many years without any kind of television. Naturally, a projector hittin…

IMO, this is mostly around the pain of spending money not the actual cost of content. Cable runs around 1k/year or more and has advertising, which used to be a fairly normal thing upper middle class people bought. Split that into into individual purchases and your likely spending far less. You just happen to notice that your spending money where subscriptions are a background thing. Also, don't forget Netflix DVD is…

Do you really spend $1k/year just for TV, or does that include internet? Because if the later, it's not really comparable.
Post reply on HN