4 ms·

I don't know if I am wholly against DRM because I do like streaming services like Spotify for their convenience. I'm just tired of pirating things. And I do mak

by canistr 10y ago

I don't know if I am wholly against DRM because I do like streaming services like Spotify for their convenience. I'm just tired of pirating things. And I do make money as a developer as a result of protected APIs/content. Is this hypocritical?

kefka 10y ago
Yes, it is. Spotify is saying "You may download this, but this program under someone else's control will forcefully delete this data from your machine" My machine is my own. If I wish to grant other users access to the machine or data on it, cool. That's my choice. If I buy a program to do a task, good. When your program starts taking orders from "nameless faceless someone else", we have problems. Locked in APIs are just as much as a scourge. When you use them, you're locking yourself into an ecosystem that will go away. It's not a matter of if, but when. I'm less hesitant when these APIs used are standards compliant (where I can go 'down the street' and plug in their credential info)... But that's not where money is. Lockin is where the money is. And I'll fight it tooth and nail. I already am doing the fight against bad IoT.
- caractacus 10y ago
  > My machine is my own. If I wish to grant other users access to the machine or data on it, cool. That's my choice. If I buy a program to do a task, good. When your program starts taking orders from "nameless faceless someone else", we have problems. And the content you are streaming through 'nameless faceless someone else' is not your own. You pay to get access to it. Are you saying that because you install a program on your machine, you should have complete control over what it can and can't do to the content it provides?
  - kefka 10y ago
    > And the content you are streaming through 'nameless faceless someone else' is not your own. You pay to get access to it. Are you saying that because you install a program on your machine, you should have complete control over what it can and can't do to the content it provides? By hook or by crook, yes. I've admitted that I'm a pirate. Look at my comments and you'll find it. If it's convenient enough I'll buy. I'm not under spending money on media. And I do have complete control what the program can and cannot do. It's called a debugger. The encrypted files and keys are right there. It's nothing more than a bad obfuscation technique.
  - yarrel 10y ago
    Yes absolutely. Why do you feel they shouldn't?
    - khedoros 10y ago
      I feel that a program should be clear about what it will do, to give you the choice of whether or not to run it on your hardware. Software is pretty dismal at doing that, and I don't know how to improve it. Something like a bullet-point list of properties like "SoundBlob will let you listen to music, but not save it locally" seem like it'd work, but I know that would quickly become a reflexive "click OK to proceed" situation. I believe that software on my computer shouldn't have restrictions that I don't know about, take actions that I don't know about, etc. But if someone else wants to run some super-DRM app, I don't think that my opinions of what's best for them should limit what they can run on their machine. In short, I want complete control over what runs on my computer and the chance to reject programs that don't work the way I want them to. I don't think that I have the right to change their intended behavior (although, to be honest, I will when it suits my purposes).
      - kefka 10y ago
        I look at it a bit differently. 1. Do I have the right to run, inspect, modify, or do whatever to a binary running on my machine? Absolutely. Running Linux, I can inspect down to the kernel, if I so choose. But I can hook onto any program I want, and watch any program I choose. If I want to modify memory, I can. Root really means root. 2. So who owns the machine if someone else's program can tell you "You can't do this." ? That's not following what I want, therefore I can only imply that I'm not the owner. I'm all for signed hardware and protections, but things like the TPM give security and ownership to someone that's not me. I'd be for it if I had the private key of that chip. 3. So a computer that doesn't follow the user's requirements... what does that look like? It looks like a Tivo, iPhone, some Androids, Windows 10, and other locked down hardware. Yes, you may have bought it, but you don't own it. Worse yet, is instead of DRM, is that subroutines come from "the cloud" (AKA someone else's server), and streamed to the device when requested. Google shut down a platform for precisely that reason; they deactivated the API servers. What's the way out? Free Software is a big way out, but so is Open Protocols, and Open Standards. You have a business for IoT (example)? Use MQTT/CoAP and talk via the standards and make it pretty. But also make it so I can close up shop and go elsewhere if you alienate me. Right now, that's the lockin comparable to DRM.
ingenter 10y ago
Is DRM required for streaming services you describe to exist?
- mwfunk 10y ago
  Yes? So far, at least. If not, there's a massive business opportunity here. C'mon guys, get to it, I want to be a fly on the wall when you pitch your big DRM-free subscription streaming service to Sony, Warner, HBO, etc. Money is being left on the table and you guys are just sitting around on HN bitching about DRM!
  - Morgawr 10y ago
    How does your post relate to the post you replied to? Is DRM required for streaming music? Definitely not. Is DRM required to make money out of streaming music? Debatable. Putting it on a comparable service, look at GOG.com and Steam. They are both digital game distributor services. Before GOG.com people thought DRM was the only way to make a viable business out of selling digital copies of videogames, as presented by Valve. Then GOG came along and they said "nope, we hate DRM, we're gonna sell digital games without it". Now, is their system viable? Well they've been around for quite a while, I don't know if their money comes directly from game sales or other sources (their parent company also owns CDProjekt which makes Triple A games like The Witcher) but they are still in the business after all these years.
    - nemothekid 10y ago
      I can't 100% buy your argument wrt GOG.com and Steam because Steam is a massive behemoth compared to GOG.com You can't look at the GOG.com on its own because its unclear if the non-DRM "benefits" of a site of GOG.com are being subsidized by Steam. If Steam was vaporized tomorrow, would GOG.com be profitable enough to support the salaries of not just GOG.com, but the developers, producers, designers, and QA testers of the game studios? If not, it's not viable. Is it? I'm not sure because Steam is the main bread winner.
      - 10y ago
tacos 10y ago
When sane restrictions are implemented properly as part of a product or service, and the resulting scarcity generates value that is perceived fair to all parties, then these sorts of debates do not naturally arise. It's the fact that it's often done so poorly and clumsily that creates the problem.
pavel_lishin 10y ago
I think if Spotify as radio; I don't buy albums on it, and I don't expect any of the music to stick around. For things I want to own forever, I buy them in mp3 format, or on Google Play and download the resulting mp3s.

by canistr 10y ago

kefka 10y ago

Yes, it is. Spotify is saying "You may download this, but this program under someone else's control will forcefully delete this data from your machine" My machine is my own. If I wish to grant other users access to the machine or data on it, cool. That's my choice. If I buy a program to do a task, good. When your program starts taking orders from "nameless faceless someone else", we have problems. Locked in APIs are just as much as a scourge. When you use them, you're locking yourself into an ecosystem that will go away. It's not a matter of if, but when. I'm less hesitant when these APIs used are standards compliant (where I can go 'down the street' and plug in their credential info)... But that's not where money is. Lockin is where the money is. And I'll fight it tooth and nail. I already am doing the fight against bad IoT.

caractacus 10y ago
> My machine is my own. If I wish to grant other users access to the machine or data on it, cool. That's my choice. If I buy a program to do a task, good. When your program starts taking orders from "nameless faceless someone else", we have problems. And the content you are streaming through 'nameless faceless someone else' is not your own. You pay to get access to it. Are you saying that because you install a program on your machine, you should have complete control over what it can and can't do to the content it provides?
- kefka 10y ago
  > And the content you are streaming through 'nameless faceless someone else' is not your own. You pay to get access to it. Are you saying that because you install a program on your machine, you should have complete control over what it can and can't do to the content it provides? By hook or by crook, yes. I've admitted that I'm a pirate. Look at my comments and you'll find it. If it's convenient enough I'll buy. I'm not under spending money on media. And I do have complete control what the program can and cannot do. It's called a debugger. The encrypted files and keys are right there. It's nothing more than a bad obfuscation technique.
- yarrel 10y ago
  Yes absolutely. Why do you feel they shouldn't?
  - khedoros 10y ago
    I feel that a program should be clear about what it will do, to give you the choice of whether or not to run it on your hardware. Software is pretty dismal at doing that, and I don't know how to improve it. Something like a bullet-point list of properties like "SoundBlob will let you listen to music, but not save it locally" seem like it'd work, but I know that would quickly become a reflexive "click OK to proceed" situation. I believe that software on my computer shouldn't have restrictions that I don't know about, take actions that I don't know about, etc. But if someone else wants to run some super-DRM app, I don't think that my opinions of what's best for them should limit what they can run on their machine. In short, I want complete control over what runs on my computer and the chance to reject programs that don't work the way I want them to. I don't think that I have the right to change their intended behavior (although, to be honest, I will when it suits my purposes).
    - kefka 10y ago
      I look at it a bit differently. 1. Do I have the right to run, inspect, modify, or do whatever to a binary running on my machine? Absolutely. Running Linux, I can inspect down to the kernel, if I so choose. But I can hook onto any program I want, and watch any program I choose. If I want to modify memory, I can. Root really means root. 2. So who owns the machine if someone else's program can tell you "You can't do this." ? That's not following what I want, therefore I can only imply that I'm not the owner. I'm all for signed hardware and protections, but things like the TPM give security and ownership to someone that's not me. I'd be for it if I had the private key of that chip. 3. So a computer that doesn't follow the user's requirements... what does that look like? It looks like a Tivo, iPhone, some Androids, Windows 10, and other locked down hardware. Yes, you may have bought it, but you don't own it. Worse yet, is instead of DRM, is that subroutines come from "the cloud" (AKA someone else's server), and streamed to the device when requested. Google shut down a platform for precisely that reason; they deactivated the API servers. What's the way out? Free Software is a big way out, but so is Open Protocols, and Open Standards. You have a business for IoT (example)? Use MQTT/CoAP and talk via the standards and make it pretty. But also make it so I can close up shop and go elsewhere if you alienate me. Right now, that's the lockin comparable to DRM.

ingenter 10y ago

Is DRM required for streaming services you describe to exist?

mwfunk 10y ago
Yes? So far, at least. If not, there's a massive business opportunity here. C'mon guys, get to it, I want to be a fly on the wall when you pitch your big DRM-free subscription streaming service to Sony, Warner, HBO, etc. Money is being left on the table and you guys are just sitting around on HN bitching about DRM!
- Morgawr 10y ago
  How does your post relate to the post you replied to? Is DRM required for streaming music? Definitely not. Is DRM required to make money out of streaming music? Debatable. Putting it on a comparable service, look at GOG.com and Steam. They are both digital game distributor services. Before GOG.com people thought DRM was the only way to make a viable business out of selling digital copies of videogames, as presented by Valve. Then GOG came along and they said "nope, we hate DRM, we're gonna sell digital games without it". Now, is their system viable? Well they've been around for quite a while, I don't know if their money comes directly from game sales or other sources (their parent company also owns CDProjekt which makes Triple A games like The Witcher) but they are still in the business after all these years.
  - nemothekid 10y ago
    I can't 100% buy your argument wrt GOG.com and Steam because Steam is a massive behemoth compared to GOG.com You can't look at the GOG.com on its own because its unclear if the non-DRM "benefits" of a site of GOG.com are being subsidized by Steam. If Steam was vaporized tomorrow, would GOG.com be profitable enough to support the salaries of not just GOG.com, but the developers, producers, designers, and QA testers of the game studios? If not, it's not viable. Is it? I'm not sure because Steam is the main bread winner.
    - 10y ago

tacos 10y ago

When sane restrictions are implemented properly as part of a product or service, and the resulting scarcity generates value that is perceived fair to all parties, then these sorts of debates do not naturally arise. It's the fact that it's often done so poorly and clumsily that creates the problem.

pavel_lishin 10y ago

I think if Spotify as radio; I don't buy albums on it, and I don't expect any of the music to stick around. For things I want to own forever, I buy them in mp3 format, or on Google Play and download the resulting mp3s.