5 ms·

DRM isn't the main issue. Most book readers don't know or care about it particularly. Yes, eventually ownership products should be DRM-free, but raging about it

by GavinB 17y ago

DRM isn't the main issue. Most book readers don't know or care about it particularly. Yes, eventually ownership products should be DRM-free, but raging about it from a moralistic standpoint isn't helping with the key issues. We need affordable, high quality readers with convenient, low priced books. DRM-free would be great, but if some DRM lets the transition happen more quickly, then so be it. Hulu, Steam, etc all show that DRM can be useful and create compelling products. I would also remind all web startup founders that the SaaS model is basically DRM. One of the major benefits of server-side code is that it is very hard to pirate. You don't "own" your instance of Basecamp, you just rent it. And there's nothing wrong with that.

tentonova 17y ago
You don't "own" your instance of Basecamp, you just rent it. And there's nothing wrong with that. Some might disagree. Personally I find SaaS to be a general business imposition with significant long-term costs in terms of lock-in, operational expenditure, and an inherently poor negotiating position with the vendor. I dislike required service contracts or yearly per-head licensing fees for the same reason. With more openly licensed software, a key differentiator is that we can choose to continue to use a previous version of the software, whereas if we cease paying for a service, we must migrate all operations, data, and training.
stcredzero 17y ago
the SaaS model is basically DRM. How is that DRM? With DRM, you have the machine in your hands, and yet you can't do what you want with it. If you don't have the machine, didn't pony up any money for it, then I don't see that you have a right to complain. Bits are not hardware, and hardware is not bits.
- GavinB 17y ago
  We're talking about audio files, ebooks, and software--it's all bits. The difference is just on whose drive the bits reside. "Digital rights management (DRM) is a generic term for access control technologies that can be used by hardware manufacturers, publishers, copyright holders and individuals to try to impose limitations on the usage of digital content and devices." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management) The current best way to control access to software is to run some key components on the server side in the SaaS model. From a business perspective, it accomplishes the goals of DRM beautifully--because the DRM naturally flows from its purpose and structure.
  - stcredzero 17y ago
    the DRM naturally flows from its purpose and structure. To me that's just a fancy way of saying, it's on their server, they get their way. Not a problem, so long as I can do it my way on my machine. Therein is the big difference.
    - GavinB 17y ago
      You can always do it your way on your machine. No one is forcing you to download DRMed content. DRM protects content by keeping key components encrypted. SaaS protects content by keeping key components server side. They're two technical approaches to achieve the same goal. I suspect the reason that no one objects is that SaaS uses the language of "subscription." I just have a hard time seeing why a DRMed program that runs on a client is morally repugnant while a functionally similar program running partially in the cloud is perfectly fine.
      - timknauf 17y ago
        But surely the distinction with a 'subscription' is more than just a language game? To my mind, a one-time fee for content strongly implies (by way of cultural expectation if nothing else) that I own rather than license that content. On the other hand, for a subscription service such as Basecamp, my interactions with my data must necessarily be mediated by a server. I do of course expect a way to export the data itself should I wish to unsubscribe - and they provide this. What more could I reasonably expect from them?
      - stcredzero 17y ago
        You can always do it your way on your machine. No one is forcing you to download DRMed content. The DMCA contradicts you. DRM protects content by keeping key components encrypted. SaaS protects content by keeping key components server side. They're two technical approaches to achieve the same goal. Not at all. "Possession is 9/10ths of the law" is a long standing common law principle. The way companies can "own" stuff you have in your possession runs counter to that. Not a good thing, IMO.
barrkel 17y ago
"Most book readers don't know or care about it particularly." This is just false: may not care about the mechanism, but they certainly notice the practicalities - the aforementioned lending, selling, bequeathing, etc. - and will be heavily reminded of them when e.g. the Kindle is no longer the market leader for ebook reading.

by GavinB 17y ago

tentonova 17y ago

You don't "own" your instance of Basecamp, you just rent it. And there's nothing wrong with that. Some might disagree. Personally I find SaaS to be a general business imposition with significant long-term costs in terms of lock-in, operational expenditure, and an inherently poor negotiating position with the vendor. I dislike required service contracts or yearly per-head licensing fees for the same reason. With more openly licensed software, a key differentiator is that we can choose to continue to use a previous version of the software, whereas if we cease paying for a service, we must migrate all operations, data, and training.

stcredzero 17y ago

the SaaS model is basically DRM. How is that DRM? With DRM, you have the machine in your hands, and yet you can't do what you want with it. If you don't have the machine, didn't pony up any money for it, then I don't see that you have a right to complain. Bits are not hardware, and hardware is not bits.

GavinB 17y ago
We're talking about audio files, ebooks, and software--it's all bits. The difference is just on whose drive the bits reside. "Digital rights management (DRM) is a generic term for access control technologies that can be used by hardware manufacturers, publishers, copyright holders and individuals to try to impose limitations on the usage of digital content and devices." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management) The current best way to control access to software is to run some key components on the server side in the SaaS model. From a business perspective, it accomplishes the goals of DRM beautifully--because the DRM naturally flows from its purpose and structure.
- stcredzero 17y ago
  the DRM naturally flows from its purpose and structure. To me that's just a fancy way of saying, it's on their server, they get their way. Not a problem, so long as I can do it my way on my machine. Therein is the big difference.
  - GavinB 17y ago
    You can always do it your way on your machine. No one is forcing you to download DRMed content. DRM protects content by keeping key components encrypted. SaaS protects content by keeping key components server side. They're two technical approaches to achieve the same goal. I suspect the reason that no one objects is that SaaS uses the language of "subscription." I just have a hard time seeing why a DRMed program that runs on a client is morally repugnant while a functionally similar program running partially in the cloud is perfectly fine.
    - timknauf 17y ago
      But surely the distinction with a 'subscription' is more than just a language game? To my mind, a one-time fee for content strongly implies (by way of cultural expectation if nothing else) that I own rather than license that content. On the other hand, for a subscription service such as Basecamp, my interactions with my data must necessarily be mediated by a server. I do of course expect a way to export the data itself should I wish to unsubscribe - and they provide this. What more could I reasonably expect from them?
    - stcredzero 17y ago
      You can always do it your way on your machine. No one is forcing you to download DRMed content. The DMCA contradicts you. DRM protects content by keeping key components encrypted. SaaS protects content by keeping key components server side. They're two technical approaches to achieve the same goal. Not at all. "Possession is 9/10ths of the law" is a long standing common law principle. The way companies can "own" stuff you have in your possession runs counter to that. Not a good thing, IMO.

barrkel 17y ago

"Most book readers don't know or care about it particularly." This is just false: may not care about the mechanism, but they certainly notice the practicalities - the aforementioned lending, selling, bequeathing, etc. - and will be heavily reminded of them when e.g. the Kindle is no longer the market leader for ebook reading.