4 ms·

I'm generally anti-DRM but I don't see what the issue is applying it to streaming media. Why should I care the Spotify uses DRM? I don't own that content, I pay

I'm generally anti-DRM but I don't see what the issue is applying it to streaming media. Why should I care the Spotify uses DRM? I don't own that content, I pay for streaming access which I get. I'm not paying to be able to download the tracks, move them to different mediums, back them up etc. Could someone explain the issue? Because the article didn't.

ef4 11y ago
That streaming DRM only works if you give up control of the hardware you own.
- k-mcgrady 11y ago
  Sorry, I don't understand. Could you provide more info or a link to something showing this? I can't understand how I'm giving up control of my laptop hardware when I stream a movie on Netflix for example.
  - parenthephobia 11y ago
    When you stream a movie on Netflix, either the DRM doesn't work, or you no longer have unrestricted access - from inside the computer - to the pixels on the screen, or the audio being output. i.e. If you try to screenshot the movie, or redirect the audio into a file, you won't be allowed. The video and audio quality may be downgraded if you attach non-HDCP (a DRM system for local video and audio) outputs to your laptop. Sometimes Netflix will simply refuse to stream anything if it isn't sure that the path from the video decoder to the monitor's screen is secure. e.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/3j0vck/whats_hdcp_and_why_cant_i_play_netflix_on_my/ https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/3j0vck/whats_hdcp_an... You don't have permission from Netflix to prevent this. If you're in the US or UK - and many other jurisdictions - it is illegal for you to do so, even if it's very clearly within your fair use (or equivalent) rights. In the future, it's likely that DRM will extended to add and detect watermarks to restricted video and audio output, requiring you (and those around you) to cede full use of any other devices with microphones and cameras that might happen to capture that output.
- eridius 11y ago
  That's a bogus argument. By that logic, every single commercial app you download and run is "giv[ing] up control of the hardware you own". Hell, even just booting up Windows or OS X qualifies.
  - ef4 11y ago
    No, there's a fundamental difference. I'm not talking about running closed source software. Windows will happily execute any general purpose program you care to throw at it. And how could it not, given the principal of Turing equivalence? DRM is different because it's a deliberate attempt to make a non-general computer. One that refuses to execute certain perfectly valid programs. Window and OSX will happily grant the owner the highest level of privileges and let you read or flip any bit in the system. DRM is about creating a privilege level that the owner cannot access.
    - eridius 11y ago
      DRM is not different, you're just confused about what a "program" is. Windows/Linux/OS X defines a program in a specific way (e.g. that matches one or several known formats) and will happily execute programs that conform to that specification. But if you take a C source file that can be compiled into a valid program, Windows/Linux/OS X will not execute that C source file for you, it will only execute the results of compiling it. And DRM is no different. It just happens that the definition of "program" for DRM is different than the definition of "program" for your OS, and the compiler for your DRM computer is the process that takes the un-DRM'd content and wraps it in the DRM. > Window and OSX will happily grant the owner the highest level of privileges and let you read or flip any bit in the system. Not true. At the very least, you cannot muck with kernel memory, and OS X also prevents you from modifying a bunch of files on disk that are crucial for the operation of the system even if you have root access (this is called System Integrity Protection).
      - ef4 10y ago
        > At the very least, you cannot muck with kernel memory You most certainly can. Anyone who has written a device driver has done it. > this is called System Integrity Protection That can be disabled during boot.
- spacemanmatt 11y ago
  Everyone should try this thought experiment: Design a DRM that can't be defeated when the users can run it under any debugger or virtual environment.
hsivonen 11y ago
The issue is the products that you can't choose because they don't get made because of DRM. DRM means that you need permission to have interoperability. If you are starting a new product from zero market share, if you were allowed to achieve interop by just putting the effort into writing code, you could make something awesome without anyone's permission and gain some market share if users want to your what you made. If you have no market share, a DRM-requiring service might not see your platform/device/whatever as worth supporting. And if users want the service to work before they want to use your product, then you don't get to build the market share to make your bizdev case and DRM means you don't get to engineer around bizdev.
- k-mcgrady 11y ago
  Ok so it increases the barrier to entry for new device/platform makers. I don't see why that should be the content creators problem though. It's similar to the argument Pandora was making that the cost of content was too high for them to survive - that's your problem not the content owners.

ef4 11y ago

That streaming DRM only works if you give up control of the hardware you own.

k-mcgrady 11y ago
Sorry, I don't understand. Could you provide more info or a link to something showing this? I can't understand how I'm giving up control of my laptop hardware when I stream a movie on Netflix for example.
- parenthephobia 11y ago
  When you stream a movie on Netflix, either the DRM doesn't work, or you no longer have unrestricted access - from inside the computer - to the pixels on the screen, or the audio being output. i.e. If you try to screenshot the movie, or redirect the audio into a file, you won't be allowed. The video and audio quality may be downgraded if you attach non-HDCP (a DRM system for local video and audio) outputs to your laptop. Sometimes Netflix will simply refuse to stream anything if it isn't sure that the path from the video decoder to the monitor's screen is secure. e.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/3j0vck/whats_hdcp_and_why_cant_i_play_netflix_on_my/ https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/3j0vck/whats_hdcp_an... You don't have permission from Netflix to prevent this. If you're in the US or UK - and many other jurisdictions - it is illegal for you to do so, even if it's very clearly within your fair use (or equivalent) rights. In the future, it's likely that DRM will extended to add and detect watermarks to restricted video and audio output, requiring you (and those around you) to cede full use of any other devices with microphones and cameras that might happen to capture that output.
eridius 11y ago
That's a bogus argument. By that logic, every single commercial app you download and run is "giv[ing] up control of the hardware you own". Hell, even just booting up Windows or OS X qualifies.
- ef4 11y ago
  No, there's a fundamental difference. I'm not talking about running closed source software. Windows will happily execute any general purpose program you care to throw at it. And how could it not, given the principal of Turing equivalence? DRM is different because it's a deliberate attempt to make a non-general computer. One that refuses to execute certain perfectly valid programs. Window and OSX will happily grant the owner the highest level of privileges and let you read or flip any bit in the system. DRM is about creating a privilege level that the owner cannot access.
  - eridius 11y ago
    DRM is not different, you're just confused about what a "program" is. Windows/Linux/OS X defines a program in a specific way (e.g. that matches one or several known formats) and will happily execute programs that conform to that specification. But if you take a C source file that can be compiled into a valid program, Windows/Linux/OS X will not execute that C source file for you, it will only execute the results of compiling it. And DRM is no different. It just happens that the definition of "program" for DRM is different than the definition of "program" for your OS, and the compiler for your DRM computer is the process that takes the un-DRM'd content and wraps it in the DRM. > Window and OSX will happily grant the owner the highest level of privileges and let you read or flip any bit in the system. Not true. At the very least, you cannot muck with kernel memory, and OS X also prevents you from modifying a bunch of files on disk that are crucial for the operation of the system even if you have root access (this is called System Integrity Protection).
    - ef4 10y ago
      > At the very least, you cannot muck with kernel memory You most certainly can. Anyone who has written a device driver has done it. > this is called System Integrity Protection That can be disabled during boot.
spacemanmatt 11y ago
Everyone should try this thought experiment: Design a DRM that can't be defeated when the users can run it under any debugger or virtual environment.

hsivonen 11y ago

The issue is the products that you can't choose because they don't get made because of DRM. DRM means that you need permission to have interoperability. If you are starting a new product from zero market share, if you were allowed to achieve interop by just putting the effort into writing code, you could make something awesome without anyone's permission and gain some market share if users want to your what you made. If you have no market share, a DRM-requiring service might not see your platform/device/whatever as worth supporting. And if users want the service to work before they want to use your product, then you don't get to build the market share to make your bizdev case and DRM means you don't get to engineer around bizdev.

k-mcgrady 11y ago
Ok so it increases the barrier to entry for new device/platform makers. I don't see why that should be the content creators problem though. It's similar to the argument Pandora was making that the cost of content was too high for them to survive - that's your problem not the content owners.