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

Lawsuit could be the beginning of the end for DRM

defectivebydesign.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 209 posts

Re: Lawsuit could be the beginning of the end for DRM

#31

Post by pdkl95 »

6stringmerc wrote: post #6

The link is to a reasonably thought out and worded perspective from that of a technology industry participant. As noted within, there are some guiding principles which establish the basis for perspective and action. As in, the Free Software Foundation wouldn't be interested in participating in the for-profit software market. For a counter-point, when this case first broke and I was able to study the implications from…

> Copyright Abolitionists

Only a small subset of people against DRM and the problems in the DMCA are against copyright.

Also, as zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC already pointed out, the FSF is fine[1] with for-profit software. This confusion often derives from an assumption that you have to deny distribution rights to your customers to sell them anything. That isn't always true.

> study the implications

What you seem to be missing (in general) is about the EFF's fight against Section 1201 is that this isn't about copyright. The EFF is fighting the ban on bypassing "technological measure[s] that effectively controls access to a work"[2]. This ban makes some types of security research illegal, because the law treats security researchers announcing a DRM bug the same as someone exploiting the same bug to copy a movie.

Right now you are probably using a browser that contains a 3rd part black box CDM ("Content Decryption Module"). Every day you use that browser you're betting that nobody has found an exploitable bug in that black box. Bugs are particularly dangerous when they are hidden in a black box; it's easy to ignore bugs that nobody can see. This concern isn't hypothetical: a bug in Chrome's Widevine CDM was discovered recently[3].

[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html

[2] 17 U.S.C Sec. 1201(a)(1)

[3] http://boingboing.net/2016/06/24/googles-version-of-the-w3c....

Re: Lawsuit could be the beginning of the end for DRM

#32

Post by vidarh »

Yetanfou wrote: post #25
throwaway1974 wrote: post #3

If it was not for DRM removal tools I would have recently been screwed by Amazon, here is my story: I was a longtime customer (easily 10 years or more I think) and have bought every version of Kindle to have come out over the years (unfortunately they break easily) and have build up a large collection Recently I replaced the debit card on my account as the old one expired, placed and order for a digital game code for…

Don't rely on any 'official' solution to maintain your digital library as those are sure to stop working in one way (company goes bankrupt or gets bought) or another (planned obsolescence, forced upgrade, etc) in a few years time. Configure your own using one of the existing tools; if you use Owncloud or Nextcloud you could use my OPDS Catalog app ( https://apps.owncloud.com/content/show.php?content=168132 ), possibl…

Second this. While I do occasionally buy Kindle books, I only buy them as long as the DRM is straightforward to remove. The moment they get aggressive about DRM, it'll be the last time I ever buy one.

I don't feel strongly enough about it to avoid books I want to read that are only available with DRM, but I do insist on having an unencumbered copy.

And when a book is available from a source I know are good about not using DRM, I will aim to buy from there, and buy direct in preference to buying from a DRM-friendly outlet - e.g. I prefer to buy from O'Reilly direct for that reason.

The only form of "DRM" I don't mind are the e-book stores that provide you with a personalised copy that includes my name/e-mail, but otherwise leaves the book unprotected.

Re: Lawsuit could be the beginning of the end for DRM

#33

Post by FussyZeus »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #27
6stringmerc wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very encouraging to read and I'm in complete agreement. I've posted a link to my essay in this thread because I share the media/tech slugfest perspective. Personally I think the starting point to get out of this mess is an overhaul first and foremost of Copyright terms. They're so far out of whack it genuinely stifles innovation and expression and progress...etc. Now, more than ever, time moves quickly - what…

The problem is the greed and narcissism on both sides. The content corps make a ton of money by exploiting creative people. They used to be able to justify this by claiming that they sponsored and nurtured talent. That was always a stretch, even when 15% of a CD sale - maximum - went to the original creator, and the rest to the rest of the industry. But advances did happen, and they were the only way creatives could…

> The content corps make a ton of money by exploiting creative people.

That shouldn't be part of this debate. It's despicable, there's no doubt but a company doing unethical things doesn't give license for anyone to steal from them. If you don't want to support them that's your choice, you can't choose to steal the product under the banner of moral outrage and claim to be in the right.

Tons of companies exploit tons of people, creative and otherwise. I can't steal a Ferrari because one of the engineers feels underpaid.

Re: Lawsuit could be the beginning of the end for DRM

#34

Post by acdha »

nickbauman wrote: post #18
acdha wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of this comes down to terminology: the people who are the most upset about DRM are the people who thought they were “buying” something in the same manner as a physical item and are at some point rudely reminded that the company considers it more like a temporary license. Very few people mind services like Netflix or Spotify because it's extremely clear that you're paying for a month of access at a time. I doubt…

This is why generally I don't buy Amazon stuff for my kindle. 99% of my kindle contains stuff that was either free in the first place (ibilio, gutenberg proj, etc) or was purchased without DRM installed. I made an exception with Audible but I'm going to cancel it because while I love the idea of Audible, I've been racking up freebees every month and not pulling the trigger because I just don't have the time.

I generally see it as a price threshold: when a Kindle book is much cheaper than the paperback I'm willing to accept getting less value, especially if it's something like book n in a series which I'm going to read on the plane and don't expect to reread.

Re: Lawsuit could be the beginning of the end for DRM

#35

Post by bad_user »

acdha wrote: post #13
T0T0R0 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only scenario, in which DRM makes any sense at all, is B2B patronage. Other businesses probably SHOULD license hobbled, encrypted garbage from provider businesses. It's a use case where a collective group of people decide to use a pre-defined set of noises and pictures for some reason or another. But who cares why, and no one on the consumer side of that transaction really owns the media samples directly. The pro…

A lot of this comes down to terminology: the people who are the most upset about DRM are the people who thought they were “buying” something in the same manner as a physical item and are at some point rudely reminded that the company considers it more like a temporary license. Very few people mind services like Netflix or Spotify because it's extremely clear that you're paying for a month of access at a time. I doubt…

The problem is of course that we as humans don't like to rent, we like to own and for good reasons. We only prefer to rent when overall the price is much better than owning or when we don't have a choice.

Netflix and Spotify don't have a problem with their subscribers because the price is fair. $10 per month is fair for unlimited access to TV shows that you like. $10 is also fair for unlimited access to all the music that you want. And in fact both Netflix and Spotify don't really need DRM in order for them to work. I can already find all of that content on PirateBay, all of that content has already been pirated. And if I'm paying for Netflix, I might do so out of convenience and because pirating is illegal.

But charge $10 for an eBook or $15-$30 for an audio book or $10 for a music album and that price is no longer fair with DRM. The problem is that these companies want to have their cake and eat it too, by creating the illusion of ownership, with people not realizing they are locked-in until it is too late. And that should be clearly illegal, I wonder when people will wake up.

Re: Lawsuit could be the beginning of the end for DRM

#36

Post by snuxoll »

FussyZeus wrote: post #5

The fact is both sides of this have a lot to answer for in terms of eroding the underlying relationship when it comes to any consumer/creator transaction. For a long time media companies made it artificially hard to purchase content legally and in so doing are at least partially responsible for the rampancy of piracy. In turn, a lot of people got used to pirating content for free instead of paying for it, even when r…

> A decent number of media companies now treat their customers like criminals

To the point that the majority of the ways we consume video these days don't even allow us to keep copies locally. Thanks for letting me cache content on mobile devices Amazon, but a big middle finger for not being allowed to do so on my PC so I can actually strip the damned garbage and put it into Plex so everytime I put on a show for my daughter I have to navigate through all the other "offerings" you have available because there's no way for me to just organize and curate what displays on screen.

It's gone beyond just treating customers like criminals, as a result of getting locked into video providers we have to wade through a deluge of adverts for other content instead of being allowed to control our own experience. I'm this far away from just throwing money down to rebuy all my children's content on iTunes and pay the $50 for a DRM removal tool just so I can regain the control I had over my experience like I had when I first started purchasing digital media.

To make things more irritating it's horrendously difficult or simply impossible to actually buy physical media for a lot of things, especially TV shows, these days. Ripping a blu-ray is easy, I have yet to find any solution for stripping Widevine off a streaming video.

Re: Lawsuit could be the beginning of the end for DRM

#37

Post by fsloth »

kakarot wrote: post #21
superuser2 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've taken to viewing Kindle books as a very expensive indefinite-but-temporary library loan. Between the years+ length of the borrowing period, instant delivery, lighted screen, compactness, and travel-friendliness it can be worth the premium over a public library loan. In dollars per hour of entertainment, it's better than some options. But it is ultimately a rental. If you have a relatively progressive library and…

Orrrr support a non-DRM publisher. Ya know

If I need a book for a specific deep topic it's usually unlikely to find the specific material from someone else.

Re: Lawsuit could be the beginning of the end for DRM

#38

Post by DanBC »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #27
6stringmerc wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very encouraging to read and I'm in complete agreement. I've posted a link to my essay in this thread because I share the media/tech slugfest perspective. Personally I think the starting point to get out of this mess is an overhaul first and foremost of Copyright terms. They're so far out of whack it genuinely stifles innovation and expression and progress...etc. Now, more than ever, time moves quickly - what…

The problem is the greed and narcissism on both sides. The content corps make a ton of money by exploiting creative people. They used to be able to justify this by claiming that they sponsored and nurtured talent. That was always a stretch, even when 15% of a CD sale - maximum - went to the original creator, and the rest to the rest of the industry. But advances did happen, and they were the only way creatives could…

> How many pirates have made any effort to sponsor creators, or pay creators directly for original content?

At least some, because cstross and Stewart Lee (among many others) have bits on their websites about what to do if you've somehow got some pirated content of their and wish to give them money for it.

(cstross asks people to buy a book, which sends money to the infractructure he uses to produce books. Stewart Lee asks people to send money to a donkey sanctuary.)

Some forms of piracy have been recognised by industry who changed practice to mitigate. Parent who buy DVDs tend to buy many, and to see them destroyed by children. It's easy for parents to buy a DVD then download another copy of the film than to keep rebuying the same DVD. Disney now provide a free digital download when you buy a DVD/Bluray.

Re: Lawsuit could be the beginning of the end for DRM

#39

Post by pdkl95 »

patrec wrote: post #28
pdkl95 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recommend against the buy-and-strip approach, because you are still signaling that you are ok with (some) DRM. The only signal you are sending back to the manufacturer is your purchase. The only thing the manufacturer sees is how the addition of DRM affects their profit, and you're telling them that the DRM is acceptable.

This battle is lost and the reality is already much worse than just DRM. It is increasingly impossible to actually own digital content and all content is moving to digital. You only lease at the revocable pleasure of some multi-billion dollar corporation. No resale, no inheritance, no right of refusal of obnoxious TOS changes if you want continued access. Yes, for some technical books it is still possible to buy a DR…

Yes, you might have to do without some things.

This is why some of us were making a lot of noise about this problem 20+ years ago, when sending the message that "leasing"/DRM isn't acceptable didn't require a significant sacrifice. Unfortunately everyone - including engineers that should have known better - was more interested in the media industry's shiny baubles than investing their future property rights.

So now that same fight will probably require some amount of sacrifice. Are you willing to pay that cost now? Or do you want to wait while this transfer of rights to continues? This cost will only increase the more we allow DRM to spread.

Re: Lawsuit could be the beginning of the end for DRM

#40

Post by dexterdog »

pdkl95 wrote: post #14
bsharitt wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll only buy DRM content as long as I can easily remove it, and right now the only DRM content I regularly buy is books mostly from Google and Amazon. The first thing i strip the DRM and archive it.

I recommend against the buy-and-strip approach, because you are still signaling that you are ok with (some) DRM. The only signal you are sending back to the manufacturer is your purchase. The only thing the manufacturer sees is how the addition of DRM affects their profit, and you're telling them that the DRM is acceptable.

DRM is acceptable to me as long as it is removable. I'll let them think that they are getting one over on me when they are not.
Post reply on HN