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

DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–77 of 77 posts

Re: DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users

#71

Post by __david__ »

cjkaminski wrote: post #42

I wish I could be against all DRM. Like many things in life, it's not that simple. I'm proud of Apple for successfully taking DRM out of the equation from music sales. But what about non-sales interactions? We don't get DRM-free copies of all our music from Spotify, nor should we reasonably expect that. We are subscribing to a service that allows us access to music so long as we are paying customers. Why shouldn't th…

> We don't get DRM-free copies of all our music from Spotify, nor should we reasonably expect that.

Why not? I use a number of internet "radio" stations that send DRM free mp3 streams to my computer (complete with ads). Some even have paid accounts that stream at a higher bitrate.

The only reason Spotify can't do that is because the recording studios act like frightened little children, scared that someone is going to take their toys away. They've (somewhat successfully) planted the meme that DRM is required or the evil pirates will just steal everything and they'll go out of business. But I just don't buy it.

Re: DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users

#72

Post by shmerl »

quasque wrote: post #66
shmerl wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DRM is never great. Show me one user who actually appreciates DRM itself. What you meant above is that users like the service. They could like it even more if it hadn't DRM garbage attached to it. I.e. DRM has nothing to do with what users like - it always degrades the quality of the service and the digital goods it delivers.

If you're watching streamed video, the DRM is completely transparent. I don't see how that is a degradation in service. The only way it would be an issue is if you're trying to rip the stream. But if you've paid the provider for streaming only, rather than to download and keep a copy, then that's also not really degrading the quality of service. Similarly, the prohibition on bringing a video camera in to record cinem…

> If you're watching streamed video, the DRM is completely transparent. I don't see how that is a degradation in service.

It is crippling usability in several ways:

1. DRM is usually not portable (or not ported at least). I.e. most probably it's tied to certain devices / operating systems / applications and etc. For the end user it translates to "you can't watch it on the device / operating system / application of your choice".

2. DRM prevents backups. If the service goes bust or you lose connectivity - you have no access to your data.

3. DRM poses a security / privacy threat. Being transparent doesn't make it any better - it only makes it worse (think of a hidden camera).

All those are clearly examples of degraded usability no matter how "transparent" some DRM is.

Re: DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users

#73

Post by quasque »

shmerl wrote: post #72
quasque wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're watching streamed video, the DRM is completely transparent. I don't see how that is a degradation in service. The only way it would be an issue is if you're trying to rip the stream. But if you've paid the provider for streaming only, rather than to download and keep a copy, then that's also not really degrading the quality of service. Similarly, the prohibition on bringing a video camera in to record cinem…

> If you're watching streamed video, the DRM is completely transparent. I don't see how that is a degradation in service. It is crippling usability in several ways: 1. DRM is usually not portable (or not ported at least). I.e. most probably it's tied to certain devices / operating systems / applications and etc. For the end user it translates to "you can't watch it on the device / operating system / application of yo…

Regarding your first point, hasn't this always been the case even before DRM? For example, one cannot directly interpret the magnetic fluctuations encoded onto a cassette tape - a tape player is needed to transduce the signal. DRM just takes this a step further by introducing cryptography and obfuscation into the decoding process.

I don't think backups are relevant to DRM-laden streaming video, given that it's someone else's data that you happen to be observing.

I'm not sure what you mean by a security and privacy threat. Surely it is no more of a threat than visiting potentially untrusted websites, or using closed-source or unverified open-source binaries, in the first place?

Re: DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users

#74

Post by shmerl »

quasque wrote: post #73
shmerl wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're watching streamed video, the DRM is completely transparent. I don't see how that is a degradation in service. It is crippling usability in several ways: 1. DRM is usually not portable (or not ported at least). I.e. most probably it's tied to certain devices / operating systems / applications and etc. For the end user it translates to "you can't watch it on the device / operating system / application of yo…

Regarding your first point, hasn't this always been the case even before DRM? For example, one cannot directly interpret the magnetic fluctuations encoded onto a cassette tape - a tape player is needed to transduce the signal. DRM just takes this a step further by introducing cryptography and obfuscation into the decoding process. I don't think backups are relevant to DRM-laden streaming video, given that it's someon…

> Regarding your first point, hasn't this always been the case even before DRM?

It's not the case for any normal standard portable format (video, audio, etc.). They can be accessed on any platform. DRM prevents that limiting your options where and how to use it. If you take tapes analogy, you can play your tape in any player. Imagine a tape which is only playable in Sony player or whatever. It's clearly a defective product in my view.

> I don't think backups are relevant to DRM-laden streaming video, given that it's someone else's data that you happen to be observing.

That's exactly the point. It means usability is reduced if anything goes wrong with the service or you can't connect to it or whatever other similar reason.

> I'm not sure what you mean by a security and privacy threat.

Since DRM is based on distrusting the user (assuming all of them are potential criminals by default), symmetrical treatment for it from the user's side should be "always potential malware by default". Here is a good example of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_rootkit

Since DRM is always a black box / closed code, it adds to the reasons to never trust it.

Re: DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users

#75

Post by quasque »

shmerl wrote: post #74
quasque wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding your first point, hasn't this always been the case even before DRM? For example, one cannot directly interpret the magnetic fluctuations encoded onto a cassette tape - a tape player is needed to transduce the signal. DRM just takes this a step further by introducing cryptography and obfuscation into the decoding process. I don't think backups are relevant to DRM-laden streaming video, given that it's someon…

> Regarding your first point, hasn't this always been the case even before DRM? It's not the case for any normal standard portable format (video, audio, etc.). They can be accessed on any platform. DRM prevents that limiting your options where and how to use it. If you take tapes analogy, you can play your tape in any player. Imagine a tape which is only playable in Sony player or whatever. It's clearly a defective p…

I don't think DRM really prevents anyone from watching video. There are plenty of alternative options. For example, for popular films, one option would be not to use the streaming video service but instead purchase a DVD. Another alternative is to use a platform that supports the desired DRM-laden streaming video service. A more difficult approach would be to reverse engineer the DRM software and reimplement it for the chosen unsupported platform. So it's not ultimately limiting, at most it's a small inconvenience.

The same arguments apply to the issue of backups. It would be highly unusual for the only copy of a media product to be only accessible via a DRM-encumbered streaming video service.

I do see your point on the lack of trust though. In this case, hopefully Mozilla's sandboxing approach would go some way towards mitigating that. And the inevitable disassembly of whatever closed-source binary they release.

Re: DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users

#76

Post by shmerl »

quasque wrote: post #75
shmerl wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Regarding your first point, hasn't this always been the case even before DRM? It's not the case for any normal standard portable format (video, audio, etc.). They can be accessed on any platform. DRM prevents that limiting your options where and how to use it. If you take tapes analogy, you can play your tape in any player. Imagine a tape which is only playable in Sony player or whatever. It's clearly a defective p…

I don't think DRM really prevents anyone from watching video. There are plenty of alternative options. For example, for popular films, one option would be not to use the streaming video service but instead purchase a DVD. Another alternative is to use a platform that supports the desired DRM-laden streaming video service. A more difficult approach would be to reverse engineer the DRM software and reimplement it for t…

> I do see your point on the lack of trust though.

If you put that in perspective of recent privacy / mass surveillance issues, DRM is a perfect ground for various agencies to put their effort it. After all, DRM is already by design intended to spy on users and control what they do, plus DRM is massively deployed because many consumers accept it without second thought.

Re: DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users

#77

Post by dllthomas »

rayiner wrote: post #13
shmerl wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DRM is never great. Show me one user who actually appreciates DRM itself. What you meant above is that users like the service. They could like it even more if it hadn't DRM garbage attached to it. I.e. DRM has nothing to do with what users like - it always degrades the quality of the service and the digital goods it delivers.

That's like saying nobody likes the turnstile on the subway. Of course not, but it enables the service to exist in the form it does. I'd much rather go through the turnstile, as awkward as it can be if you've got a suitcase, etc, than be forced to watch advertisements during my subway ride...

As it happens, a lot of subways don't have turnstiles or ads, but instead periodically check for tickets after you're on board. I don't think that's terribly relevant here, though.
Post reply on HN