“DRM is Used to Lock in, Control and Spy on Users” • Hacker News Board

Re: “DRM is Used to Lock in, Control and Spy on Users”

#41

Post by falcolas » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 8:24 PM UTC

syshum wrote: post #37

falcolas wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Law is force Not really - a law is a codification of desired human behavior. > an armed agent from the government will enforce that rule upon you. This is definitely at the extreme end of the list of possibilities. The enforcement of those laws can take any number of forms, but most do not involve armed agents. Most involve certified letters and negotiations between lawyers in front of an (unarmed) judge. This is e…

Clearly you are not in the United States... >>Most involve certified letters and negotiations between lawyers in front of an (unarmed) judge. While the judge himself may be unarmed, he has armed protection often several armed protectors at the ready. And if you ignore the commandment of the judge he/she has no problem ordering those armed agent to bring violence upon you to compel your obedience

> he has armed protection

Which is drastically different from an armed agent coming to get you. I know of COOs of corporations who have armed bodyguards - does that make them a direct threat to you?

> if you ignore the commandment of the judge

If you ignore a judge, then you're breaking a separate law, and being held in contempt of court. At which point, you're playing in a whole separate ballgame than if you were caught speeding.

Re: “DRM is Used to Lock in, Control and Spy on Users”

#42

Post by falcolas » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 8:38 PM UTC

syshum wrote: post #31

falcolas wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Creators have only the right to ask for money for their works, they have no right to compensation at all. Similarly, we as consumers have no inherit right to view or use their work without paying the creator's asking price. Nor do we have the right to force the creators to create work. IOW, the only way to really motivate creators to create is to compensate them somehow (money works great). Capitalism at work.

>>we as consumers have no inherit right to view So if I am walking past a home and they happen to be playing a movie I do not own I some how "owe" the created monetary compensation? > use their work without paying the creator's asking price. that depends on how you define use, I do not believe a content creator has the ethical authority to tell me how I can or can not arrange the bits on my computer system, or what o…

Fortunately, you don't have to speculate about your first case in the US: the legal system has carved out exceptions to copyright against this kind of issue under the name of "Fair Use".

> I do not believe a content creator has the ethical authority

And here's the crux of our disagreement. You don't believe that the creator should have rights over their creation, perhaps because their creation came to you over a medium that allows for easy duplication.

I (and the US government, clear back to the constitutional convention) believe they should.

The rest of your argument centers on DRM; I agree that DRM is an abomination which should be abolished. It hurts both creators and consumers. But, and this is a big but, it's our own propensity to not respect the rights of the creator which has encouraged the adoption of DRM. If we were were only creating perfect copies of a creative work for the purpose backing it up, I don't think we would be here.

We don't just back it up, though, we create perfect copies and give them away or sell them for our own gain. DRM was originally conceived to stop this, and I have a hard time blaming them for going down that road when we were so blatantly breaking the law and ignoring the rights of the content creators.

We justify it with "it's just ones and zeros", or "information wants to be free", or "they would have made the content anyways"... but that's all it is, a justification. And in my opinion, that justification results in less original content.

Re: “DRM is Used to Lock in, Control and Spy on Users”

#43

Post by EdHominem » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 8:56 PM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #23

wolfgke wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would GRRM still be writing ASOIF if he wasn't able to make a living off it? Perhaps, perhaps not. Paying him makes it a lot more likely. But copyright and DRM is about forcing people to pay - this has nothing to do with being able to make a living or not.

> But copyright [...] is about forcing people to pay Which, in my opinion, is not an unreasonable thing. If you want to consume the content, you pay the content creator in their currency of choice (be it github stars, their name immortalized in an attribution clause, or cash).

But I don't care about your silly movie and I'm still forced to pay for the enforcement arm of the law, the courts, etc, that you use to prop up your government granted monopoly.

And even with all that, we don't guarantee you an income, we only offer you help hurting people who don't pay you. You can still go broke and nobody cares, which I think shows that it's not about helping creators or rewarding hard work.

Re: “DRM is Used to Lock in, Control and Spy on Users”

#44

Post by EdHominem » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 9:02 PM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #35

syshum wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I'm going to make the assumption that you're referring to the idea that no law should be made that you aren't willing to resort to violence to support. All laws are enforced by violence, that is what makes them law. Law is force, Force is violence. Every law, from Jay Walking, to First Degree Murder is based by the threat that an armed agent from the government will enforce that rule upon you.

> Law is force Not really - a law is a codification of desired human behavior. > an armed agent from the government will enforce that rule upon you. This is definitely at the extreme end of the list of possibilities. The enforcement of those laws can take any number of forms, but most do not involve armed agents. Most involve certified letters and negotiations between lawyers in front of an (unarmed) judge. This is e…

> This is definitely at the extreme end of the list of possibilities.

Color me crazy or something, but it's the possibility of being shot that stands out.

It's extreme only in its brutality, not its rarity.

> Even speeding tickets are handled more and more frequently by mail.

Right, but as soon as you don't agree with the outcome the men with guns are right there.

> a law is a codification of desired human behavior.

A self-help book is a codification if desired human behavior. (The author usually doesn't threaten to beat/jail/kill you if you don't follow their advice.)

Law is a set of rules and punishments.

Re: “DRM is Used to Lock in, Control and Spy on Users”

#45

Post by EdHominem » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 9:07 PM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #41

syshum wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clearly you are not in the United States... >>Most involve certified letters and negotiations between lawyers in front of an (unarmed) judge. While the judge himself may be unarmed, he has armed protection often several armed protectors at the ready. And if you ignore the commandment of the judge he/she has no problem ordering those armed agent to bring violence upon you to compel your obedience

> he has armed protection Which is drastically different from an armed agent coming to get you. I know of COOs of corporations who have armed bodyguards - does that make them a direct threat to you? > if you ignore the commandment of the judge If you ignore a judge, then you're breaking a separate law, and being held in contempt of court. At which point, you're playing in a whole separate ballgame than if you were ca…

> whole separate ballgame than if

This is the game libertarians play with 'Initiation of force'.

You're saying that you're allowed to disagree, can negotiate with an unarmed judge, won't be hurt, etc, but then if you ignore a ruling - boy howdy you initiated violence against the state and they have a right to hurt you.

If I'm not free to ignore the outcome of the first issue (speeding, as you say) then the men with guns have metaphorically been there all along.

Stop dodging and just admit it - our laws are backed by the threat of lethal force. All of them, from murder down to jaywalking or posting speed-trap data on twitter.

Re: “DRM is Used to Lock in, Control and Spy on Users”

#46

Post by falcolas » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 9:25 PM UTC

EdHominem wrote: post #45

falcolas wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> he has armed protection Which is drastically different from an armed agent coming to get you. I know of COOs of corporations who have armed bodyguards - does that make them a direct threat to you? > if you ignore the commandment of the judge If you ignore a judge, then you're breaking a separate law, and being held in contempt of court. At which point, you're playing in a whole separate ballgame than if you were ca…

> whole separate ballgame than if This is the game libertarians play with 'Initiation of force'. You're saying that you're allowed to disagree, can negotiate with an unarmed judge, won't be hurt, etc, but then if you ignore a ruling - boy howdy you initiated violence against the state and they have a right to hurt you. If I'm not free to ignore the outcome of the first issue (speeding, as you say) then the men with g…

> If I'm not free to ignore the outcome of the first issue

In what society are you free to ignore the penalties for breaking the law without consequence?

Saying that the lethal violence is at the forefront of our legal system because you're not free to ignore the law with impunity seems quite disingenuous.

I won't disagree that ultimately our laws are backed by the threat of lethal force. All societies have this same reality, though. Even in a pure anarchy, violence is the ultimate deciding factor.

Violence is certainly not the first tool of enforcement, however. Most US citizens can speed, or park illegally, or download a movie via BT, all without fear of being killed as an outcome.

Re: “DRM is Used to Lock in, Control and Spy on Users”

#47

Post by syshum » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 10:55 PM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #42

syshum wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>we as consumers have no inherit right to view So if I am walking past a home and they happen to be playing a movie I do not own I some how "owe" the created monetary compensation? > use their work without paying the creator's asking price. that depends on how you define use, I do not believe a content creator has the ethical authority to tell me how I can or can not arrange the bits on my computer system, or what o…

Fortunately, you don't have to speculate about your first case in the US: the legal system has carved out exceptions to copyright against this kind of issue under the name of "Fair Use". > I do not believe a content creator has the ethical authority And here's the crux of our disagreement. You don't believe that the creator should have rights over their creation, perhaps because their creation came to you over a medi…

>>but that's all it is, a justification. And in my opinion, that justification results in less original content.

Given that more content from more people is being created today that at any point in human history runs counter to your statement

Copyright is about protecting the Gatekeepers, the Movies Studios, the Music Labels, the Book Publisher, not about protecting creators.

Karl Fogel does a great job explaining the History of copyright and why is it not needed to protect creators

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhBpI13dxkI

>> it's our own propensity to not respect the rights of the creator which has encouraged the adoption of DRM.

I do not recognize them as rights. Copyright is a Positive Right created by government. I am a supporter of Negative Rights theory and do not support any Positive rights at all

>>The rest of your argument centers on DRM;

it is not just about DRM,DRM is how they attempt to force my property to disobey my commands, it is also about the law the DRM is attempting to enforce on my machine

Re: “DRM is Used to Lock in, Control and Spy on Users”

#48

Post by charonn0 » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:03 PM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #42

syshum wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>we as consumers have no inherit right to view So if I am walking past a home and they happen to be playing a movie I do not own I some how "owe" the created monetary compensation? > use their work without paying the creator's asking price. that depends on how you define use, I do not believe a content creator has the ethical authority to tell me how I can or can not arrange the bits on my computer system, or what o…

Fortunately, you don't have to speculate about your first case in the US: the legal system has carved out exceptions to copyright against this kind of issue under the name of "Fair Use". > I do not believe a content creator has the ethical authority And here's the crux of our disagreement. You don't believe that the creator should have rights over their creation, perhaps because their creation came to you over a medi…

Fair use is impossible under most forms of DRM.

Re: “DRM is Used to Lock in, Control and Spy on Users”

#49

Post by syshum » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:04 PM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #46

EdHominem wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> whole separate ballgame than if This is the game libertarians play with 'Initiation of force'. You're saying that you're allowed to disagree, can negotiate with an unarmed judge, won't be hurt, etc, but then if you ignore a ruling - boy howdy you initiated violence against the state and they have a right to hurt you. If I'm not free to ignore the outcome of the first issue (speeding, as you say) then the men with g…

> If I'm not free to ignore the outcome of the first issue In what society are you free to ignore the penalties for breaking the law without consequence? Saying that the lethal violence is at the forefront of our legal system because you're not free to ignore the law with impunity seems quite disingenuous. I won't disagree that ultimately our laws are backed by the threat of lethal force. All societies have this same…

This is why libertarians only support laws that are DEFENSIVE in nature, i.e law banning Assault, rape, murder, theft, fraud, etc.

Outside of these types of laws, enforcement of other laws like Copyright, Drug Possession, etc are unethical initiation of force.

Here is a quote from what many consider a foundation book on libertarian legal theory

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G004

The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

Re: “DRM is Used to Lock in, Control and Spy on Users”

#50

Post by eveningcoffee » Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 11:12 PM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #21

syshum wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Everyone has right to ask and receive a compensation for their work. Nobody should be forced to work for unfair compensation Last I check no one is being forced to create movies, music, books, software, or any other creative works. I work in software development. I have had commercial projects fail miserably, I have spent 100's of hours on projects that have earned me $0, why because while I valued them clearly no…

> Last I check no one is being forced to create movies, music, books, software, or any other creative works. No, most do it because they think they can make money off it. Movies are expensive to make, and without the expectation of making that money back (or more - its an investment), why would make the movie? Books can take years to write (cough, GRRM), and the authors are frequently paid up front for the book. Woul…

First I should remind that no DRM does not mean that creative works moves into the public domain when released.

I have a cabinet full of discs holding movies I could more conveniently just have downloaded. I chose not to as I believe that this is not an acceptable behaviour for me.

Now lets just assume that people like me become a really small minority and the only way to use digital distribution effectively would be to implement DRM in its fullest draconian beauty.

For this I'll say that if this is the only way to have a digital distribution, we should let it go.

First of, we will only loose the digital distribution, that did not contain any monetary interest anyway.

It would not mean that there is no money to made be in the movies. There are still cinemas. Yes, we will loose convenience, but this is in my opinion a small price for the greater good if it has to come to this.

Second, the financing model assumed here is not the only option.

Many movies get made, at least in Europe, based on the money from the culture funds, national or private. Perhaps the budgets of these movies are not really huge, but interesting work still gets done.

There also exists the kickstarter model. Nowhere it is told that the only way to finance a big budget movie should be by to movie studios. Perhaps it would not work for all the ideas, but I can see it working for novel and promising ones. It is possible that the quality of the work will actually increase.