The purpose of DRM is not to prevent copyright violations (2013) • Hacker News Board

Re: The purpose of DRM is not to prevent copyright violations (2013)

#171

Post by malermeister » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 4:10 PM UTC

petepete wrote: post #31

kube-system wrote: post #7

I also don’t think it’s even necessary to prevent copyright infringement to achieve a goal of effectively steering people towards paid sources. I often hear arguments that its “easier to pirate movies than use DRM’d software”. But I don’t think this is actually the case for the average non-tech-savvy person. If you can operate a torrent client or even know what one is, you are much savvier than the average Netflix/Ro…

Popcorn Time being shut down by the MPAA is the reason there's no simple app for your mum and aunt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popcorn_Time Unfortunately now there are so many streaming platforms piracy will gain in popularity again. Lots of people don't mind paying for one or two, but probably not five or six. Especially when some just have one or two good programmes.

There's a ton of popcorn time forks you could give your mom tho :-)

Re: The purpose of DRM is not to prevent copyright violations (2013)

#172

Post by wbsss4412 » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 4:15 PM UTC

netcan wrote: post #106

krylon wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has been like that for a long time. The non-skippable intro screen warning viewers of the evils of unlicensed copying was only ever seen by people not watching an unlicensed copy. FWIW, I think movies need to take the same route music did. Ever since I found out I could just buy DRM-free high-quality audio at a reasonable price, I have happily paid for the music I like, because it was so very convenient. If it was…

Netflix & Spotify are currently worth $275bn & $45bn. I think it's quite unlikely that such results would be achieved with a pay-x-get-y store model. Even Disney & Universal, themselves enormously valuable companies, are greedily eying the platform model. It has everything they want. Recurring revenues. Content pushing abilities, which is usually the most strategically important asset. Platform monopoly potential, wh…

You’re severely discounting the value Netflix and Spotify provide in discovery and ease of access.

I vastly prefer those services because I don’t have much interest in managing my own library.

Re: The purpose of DRM is not to prevent copyright violations (2013)

#173

Post by throw10920 » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 4:22 PM UTC

Kon-Peki wrote: post #158

zinekeller wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know IA's budget (might be just the pandemic has tolled its finances), but I have reservations about Wikimedia's use of money. (Only the main foundation, others like the German affiliate is efficient about money and except for 2020 has a surplus which obviously went to cover inevitable shortfalls.)

IA is fighting a lawsuit over its pandemic digital book lending service - where they begged for a lawsuit by deliberately offering unlimited lending of scanned books. This is obviously something they must win, so it's going to get really expensive. A quick search shows that the lawsuit is currently in the discovery phase, which is around the time that lawsuits start to get really, really expensive. And apparently the…

Why is the lawsuit that they intentionally begged for "obviously something they must win"?

Re: The purpose of DRM is not to prevent copyright violations (2013)

#174

Post by xhkkffbf » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 4:23 PM UTC

otrahuevada wrote: post #169

The purpose of DRM is ultimately asserting the will of a couple corporate ghouls over your use of the thing they basically cheated you into renting. Which wouldn't even be a thing if intellectual property rights, which are at the core of the whole debate, were untransferable and only endured for the lifetime of the creator. If anyone were able to lobby those simple, clear changes into law, the effects of that would p…

Sorry to be a bummer, but I make my living creating copyright protected material. DRM protects me and my livelihood.

Yes, I often cut deals with the people you refer to as "corporate ghouls". While I often lament the terms, they aren't horrible. In the end, I make enough money to avoid searching for a job with other corporations trading in material goods.

I would feel differently about the system if it weren't performing relatively well for most people. You say these ghouls "cheated" you into "renting" things. I'm not disputing the various philosophical sophistries that people use to complain about artificial scarcity etc. I just know that this evening, I"ll be able to get a nice movie that cost millions of dollars to make and spend only a few dollars to watch it in my living room. That only works when piracy doesn't.

Re: The purpose of DRM is not to prevent copyright violations (2013)

#175

Post by DarylZero » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 4:37 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #161

coldpie wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The idea is that if there's no copyright then creators would have no economic incentive to create anything, so they wouldn't bother. And yet, we've had creative works from all of human history, despite copyright being barely a hundred or two years old, and our modern effectively-infinite conception of copyright is only now reaching 50 years old. This theory doesn't hold up to even a couple seconds of scrutiny.

Not only historically, but today too. If there is one thing in the world that requires no external incentive to motivate, it’s art and creative work. The entire internet is stuffed full of people making and posting creative work, 99% of the time with no expectation of economic benefit. It would all exist anyway, without copyright “nudging it along”. Every garage band in existence would also exist without copyright. E…

> Every garage band in existence would also exist without copyright

I think you are under-estimating the extent to which these people are seeking to "make it" and become profitable later.

There are also lots of SV start-ups that never make any money, yet it doesn't prove that they would still exist if NONE of them EVER made any money.

Re: The purpose of DRM is not to prevent copyright violations (2013)

#176

Post by joshlemer » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 4:38 PM UTC

This may be a good place to ask, where do you buy DRM-free ebooks? Amazon only sells "Kindle Edition" books which are DRM or a proprietary format. Same with Google Books and the Kobo store. There are independent publishers who publish content DRM-free like

* https://www.manning.com/

* https://pragprog.com/

But is there something like Amazon which has a huge library of DRM-free ebooks for sale?

Re: The purpose of DRM is not to prevent copyright violations (2013)

#177

Post by kuharich » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 4:40 PM UTC

Past comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7751110 (May 15, 2014, 234 comments)

#178

Post by cloogshicer » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 4:41 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #168

cloogshicer wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think part of this change is just that there is such a high number of new games coming out every day. Also, with sales going on all the time, there is much less incentive for many people to torrent. It's also more convenient to own the game on Steam due to automatic updates, mods, etc. As Gabe Newell said, piracy is a service problem. Provide a better service and it'll go away. I think this is largely what has happ…

> I think part of this change is just that there is such a high number of new games coming out every day. The "high number of new games coming out every day" are overwhelmingly indie titles that don't use denuvo. It's not like crackers are being overwhelmed with hundreds of indie titles per year.

That's a good counter point. Hadn't considered it. Thanks!

#179

Post by notreallyserio » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 4:42 PM UTC

jen20 wrote: post #167

acdha wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not here in the U.S.

I definitely see them in the US. Trailers are just as unacceptable as ads.

What shows or movies have you seen trigger pre-roll ads on Netflix? I'm in the US and have never seen one.

#180

Post by dylan604 » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 4:46 PM UTC

wbsss4412 wrote: post #172

netcan wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix & Spotify are currently worth $275bn & $45bn. I think it's quite unlikely that such results would be achieved with a pay-x-get-y store model. Even Disney & Universal, themselves enormously valuable companies, are greedily eying the platform model. It has everything they want. Recurring revenues. Content pushing abilities, which is usually the most strategically important asset. Platform monopoly potential, wh…

You’re severely discounting the value Netflix and Spotify provide in discovery and ease of access. I vastly prefer those services because I don’t have much interest in managing my own library.

>You’re severely discounting the value Netflix ... provide in discovery and ease of access.

What the what? Discover on Netflix? If you mean accepting what they think you want to watch based on their curated lists of what they want you to watch shoved into your face in their carousels of boredom, then I'm going to have to disagree with you.