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)

#241

Post by peoplefromibiza » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 8:09 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #170

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

would you download a car? theft is when you take something from someone, when you download a movie, Netflix users can still watch it, Netflix can still stream it and they don't lose anything. In fact their profits have gone up, despite helping piracy by releasing more and more content easily sharable outside of their platforms. Netflix alone made 7.5 billions in the third quarter of 2021, up from 6.4 billions in the…

> would you download a car? If someone ever one day invents the Star Trek replicator, it would end scarcity of physical goods overnight! This would be an amazing thing for humanity (and would likely be opposed/outlawed by the same moneyed interests that oppose the sharing of non-physical goods). This hypothetical invention would utterly change humanity for the better. I would download a car! No question. If the alter…

The difference is than in many countries on this planet, that call themselves free, food and insulin are guaranteed to (almost) anybody.

If you go to the hospital in my country you can "download inulin" because it's free for everybody who needs it, rich or poor.

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

#242

Post by dahart » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 8:17 PM UTC

otrahuevada wrote: post #239

dahart wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your definitions don’t agree with the dictionary at all . It’s relevant to this discussion and important that you can sell and buy services for which you may or may not have control. I really can’t abide with crappy incorrect definitions you’ve made up on the spot that don’t agree with the ways all other people use these words. Your list of definitions here also isn’t helping clarify anything other than you’re giving…

Unfortunately, if we can't agree on what words mean, I can't justify continuing to waste time in this discussion. Cheerio!

We can agree on what words mean, as long as you don’t make up your own definitions. I do agree it’s a waste of time if you can’t use something even remotely close to the agreed-upon definitions in the dictionary.

Here are some definitions that seem more reasonable:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sell

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/buy

(Note neither of these involve use of the word “control”)

Here is the text of US copyright law, I recommend reading it:

https://www.copyright.gov/title17/

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

#243

Post by tenebrisalietum » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 8:20 PM UTC

dbrueck wrote: post #227

tenebrisalietum wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we could start from scratch, what might work is a purely use-based model, where e.g. every time you listen to a song, you pay a tiny, tiny fee for it. This requires something track me each time I listen to something. Why should the creator, or an agent of the creator of that work get that power over me? Traditional economics don't require this tracking. E.g. I buy a car off of a car lot--the car lot doesn't need…

> Why should the creator, or an agent of the creator of that work get that power over me? Well, you have no inherent right to the creator's work at all, so consider it one of the terms of the agreement in which you get access to the content and the creator gets some form of compensation. But just to reiterate, this is how it would work under a use-based model. If you have something better to suggest, then by all mean…

> Well, you have no inherent right to the creator's work at all, so consider it one of the terms of the agreement in which you get access to the content and the creator gets some form of compensation

True and a creator has no inherent right to my physical property or location info. If I hear a song over public airwaves and record it, or download it from a consenting party using bandwidth I pay for, the fact that I'm supposed to obey some license terms that I haven't consented to is an infringement on me. Creators can limit how things are released if they care so much. Supposedly Wu-Tang Clan did it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Once_Upon_a_Time_in_Shaolin.

> If you have something better to suggest, then by all means do

The sustainable path is commission-based works which could extend to patronage. I want something from an artist, I ask them to do it, then pay them for it. Musicians are already doing this with concerts.

For things that are beyond the reach of a single person, there's no reason why this can't be done group-style a la Kickstarter-type services. If the artist wants more money, they can make more works.

The mass-market motion picture and TV industry might collapse, but with the advent of streaming services it doesn't matter anymore.

FWIW I do think trademark and patents are needed and do benefit society.

> Right, but traditional economic models also don't know how to deal with a situation in which you can buy a car, never have it wear out, and create an infinite number of exact duplicates for free that you could keep for yourself or turn around and sell to anyone else, which is basically the situation we have with digital works.

That's because an economic model resolves scarcity and is the wrong tool/framework/mindset when scarcity doesn't exist. If the above existed, then everyone should have as many cars as they want.

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

#244

Post by fleddr » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 9:00 PM UTC

Skyy93 wrote: post #152

fleddr wrote: post #86

"The purpose of DRM is to give content providers leverage against creators of playback devices." Yes...and? The problem with this discussion is that it looks at this issue from one side only. It is kind of implied that content providers and creators are bad guys whilst us consumers are clearly the good guys, needlessly oppressed and restricted in our supposed "right" to consume all of the content in the world in the…

I think the problem is also the loss of control. I talked to someone today about this issue (for me its an issue) and this person did not even know what DRM is. If you do not know about something you can not build an opinion for or against it. Also you do not know if there is an alternative or another way. Therefore the dictation of hard- and software without the user really knowing whats going on is an actual issue.…

I think the issues that DRM creates are multiple, where each one differs in the way it affects the average consumer.

What you may consider a massive issue as a series/movie fanatic may not be an issue at all to a casual that watches their favorite series after work. Content platforms base their business model on casuals, not a needy extremist.

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

#245

Post by darawk » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 9:52 PM UTC

NikolaNovak wrote: post #64

darawk wrote: post #36

This article is clickbait. The headline makes a bold claim, and then the article goes on to say: The purpose of DRM isn't to prevent copying, it's to prevent unlicensed reproduction. That is, it says 'copying' in different words, by trying to talk about things adjacent to copying, like forcing ads to play. Yes, content owners want to enforce all kinds of other things with DRM, but the fundamental thing is control of…

I don't feel we ready the article the same way, interesting. Early in it makes a strong and specific claim : "The purpose of DRM is to give content providers leverage against creators of playback devices." This is explicitly stated and I believe a meaningful hypothesis to explore and base an article around. It frames the argument instead of just "creator vs pirates" as "one industry vs another" which is a sufficientl…

> "The purpose of DRM is to give content providers leverage against creators of playback devices."

What does this actually mean, though? What is it that the playback devices are doing that they don't want other than playing unauthorized material?

Framing the problem as "it's not about copying, it's about unauthorized playback" is meaningless. That's just another word for copying in this context. They want control over when and how their IP is played. The word 'copying' has always been shorthand for this.

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

#246

Post by acdha » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 10:12 PM UTC

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #240

acdha wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> theft is when you take something from someone, Yes, such as when you use someone's creative work contrary to their express desire. Digital goods don't work the same way as physical works, it's true, but all of the people involved in making them still need to get paid. The principled, ethical stance is not to watch things you don't want to pay for. Nobody's life is impoverished by making the percentage of entertainm…

> Yes, such as when you use someone's creative work contrary to their express desire. No, that's not theft. That's infringement of rights. But I speak with many artists and creators, they are more mad than me, I have a job where I get paid no matter what the result is, because they pay for my time. they are between a rock and a stone: accept to work for these platforms and get paid shit, while they nmake billion, or…

> they are between a rock and a stone: accept to work for these platforms and get paid shit, while they nmake billion, or don't and get paid shit, but at least own your work. Guess which way many are starting to take...

Again, I'm not saying that the current situation is great but if you were really concerned about artists being fairly compensated you would not take the action which results in them not getting paid. You could buy directly from the artist or you can go without, but taking advantage of their work without the agreed upon compensation calls your motives into question.

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

#247

Post by acdha » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 10:12 PM UTC

vetinari wrote: post #234

notreallyserio wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Witcher, for example.

That does not have trailers for me.

#248

Post by warkdarrior » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 10:23 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #245

NikolaNovak wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't feel we ready the article the same way, interesting. Early in it makes a strong and specific claim : "The purpose of DRM is to give content providers leverage against creators of playback devices." This is explicitly stated and I believe a meaningful hypothesis to explore and base an article around. It frames the argument instead of just "creator vs pirates" as "one industry vs another" which is a sufficientl…

> "The purpose of DRM is to give content providers leverage against creators of playback devices." What does this actually mean, though? What is it that the playback devices are doing that they don't want other than playing unauthorized material? Framing the problem as "it's not about copying, it's about unauthorized playback" is meaningless. That's just another word for copying in this context. They want control ove…

> They [content providers] want control over when and how their IP is played.

Yes, that is indeed the case. Who is in a position to enforce those controls over playback? The device manufacturers! So we are in a scenario where device manufacturers want to commoditize the content ("play anything on as many of our devices as you want"), while content providers want to restrict the content so they can monetize access to it.

#249

Post by dbrueck » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 10:38 PM UTC

tenebrisalietum wrote: post #243

dbrueck wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why should the creator, or an agent of the creator of that work get that power over me? Well, you have no inherent right to the creator's work at all, so consider it one of the terms of the agreement in which you get access to the content and the creator gets some form of compensation. But just to reiterate, this is how it would work under a use-based model. If you have something better to suggest, then by all mean…

> Well, you have no inherent right to the creator's work at all, so consider it one of the terms of the agreement in which you get access to the content and the creator gets some form of compensation True and a creator has no inherent right to my physical property or location info. If I hear a song over public airwaves and record it, or download it from a consenting party using bandwidth I pay for, the fact that I'm…

> The sustainable path is commission-based works which could extend to patronage

I'd be curious to see how this would play out - maybe it'd be great, I dunno. I do wonder, though, if approaches like this discourage people from paying and instead encourages hedging their bets to see if everyone else pays. For example, if there is a Kickstarter for a movie idea you find interesting, but you know that once the movie is made that you can get a copy for free (since there is no control over media in this model), you are incentivized to wait and see if it will get funded without you.

Similarly, without any content control, there is little incentive for anyone to sign up for streaming services, so relying on them for funding doesn't seem like it'd work either.

#250

Post by kube-system » Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 11:29 PM UTC

DarylZero wrote: post #226

kube-system wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn’t have to be much friction to have an impact. People take the path of least resistance.

But it does, because of the effect just mentioned. 99.999% of people can take the path of least resistance while the 1 in 100,000 exception bears all of the friction for all of them. Perhaps though the real friction is not exactly technical but that the piracy sites don't have the same attention-capturing "feed" or recommendation mechanisms set up. Just the friction of having to make choices.

"99.999% of people" aren't pirating media. The profits of the media industry speaks for their own success. They are doing fine.