7 ms·

The only scenario, in which DRM makes any sense at all, is B2B patronage. Other businesses probably SHOULD license hobbled, encrypted garbage from provider bus

by T0T0R0 10y ago

The only scenario, in which DRM makes any sense at all, is B2B patronage. Other businesses probably SHOULD license hobbled, encrypted garbage from provider businesses. It's a use case where a collective group of people decide to use a pre-defined set of noises and pictures for some reason or another. But who cares why, and no one on the consumer side of that transaction really owns the media samples directly. The provider company owns the masters and the subscriber company owns the user license, and outside of the context of the companies in question, those things might be worthless curiosities. But for individual consumers, DRM makes no fucking sense at all. It's abusive corporate group-think from square one. Any implementation that causes you to question whether you should share something with your friends, lest you harm a business that extracts money from you, is something of an abomination.

acdha 10y ago
A lot of this comes down to terminology: the people who are the most upset about DRM are the people who thought they were “buying” something in the same manner as a physical item and are at some point rudely reminded that the company considers it more like a temporary license. Very few people mind services like Netflix or Spotify because it's extremely clear that you're paying for a month of access at a time. I doubt we're going to get much legal change in the short term but imagine how different the discussion would be if there was a clear labeling law which required either labeling things as rentals with a very clear time window or the company is required to either provide access or refund your money should their system lock you out.
- nickbauman 10y ago
  This is why generally I don't buy Amazon stuff for my kindle. 99% of my kindle contains stuff that was either free in the first place (ibilio, gutenberg proj, etc) or was purchased without DRM installed. I made an exception with Audible but I'm going to cancel it because while I love the idea of Audible, I've been racking up freebees every month and not pulling the trigger because I just don't have the time.
  - acdha 10y ago
    I generally see it as a price threshold: when a Kindle book is much cheaper than the paperback I'm willing to accept getting less value, especially if it's something like book n in a series which I'm going to read on the plane and don't expect to reread.
- bad_user 10y ago
  The problem is of course that we as humans don't like to rent, we like to own and for good reasons. We only prefer to rent when overall the price is much better than owning or when we don't have a choice. Netflix and Spotify don't have a problem with their subscribers because the price is fair. $10 per month is fair for unlimited access to TV shows that you like. $10 is also fair for unlimited access to all the music that you want. And in fact both Netflix and Spotify don't really need DRM in order for them to work. I can already find all of that content on PirateBay, all of that content has already been pirated. And if I'm paying for Netflix, I might do so out of convenience and because pirating is illegal. But charge $10 for an eBook or $15-$30 for an audio book or $10 for a music album and that price is no longer fair with DRM. The problem is that these companies want to have their cake and eat it too, by creating the illusion of ownership, with people not realizing they are locked-in until it is too late. And that should be clearly illegal, I wonder when people will wake up.
  - dhimes 10y ago
    But these prices haven't changed much in decades. Books have always cost that much, as have albums (the exception being textbooks). Discount vinyl record albums were US $5.99 in the 1970s. I have issues with DRM, but not because I find the prices exorbitant.
    - jessaustin 10y ago
      When you bought vinyl or CDs, you owned that. How can a temporary rental be worth the same?
      - tedunangst 10y ago
        Because it takes up less space in my house.
        reitanqild 10y ago
        I say not valid because you can rip the physical media and store the original in cheap offsite storage for whoever inherits you => best of both worlds.
- michaelmrose 10y ago
  Probably nobody would be on board with paying 25-90 to rent a singular work for 5-20 years.
Noos 10y ago
The reason for DRM is to make casual piracy harder. Piracy will always exist, but if it goes beyond a certain point, it can disrupt and destroy the value of a created work. Creative work as it is is already devalued to the point where you are better off investing the hours spent into working at Mcdonalds and reaping a wage from that. If it gets prominent enough, things could get even worse. I mean, if all you make from a novel is a $5,000 advance for a years labor, and you find that not only can you not rely on ebook sales to earn that out, the pirated copy cannibalizes print sales too, it's not a good thing right?

by T0T0R0 10y ago

acdha 10y ago

A lot of this comes down to terminology: the people who are the most upset about DRM are the people who thought they were “buying” something in the same manner as a physical item and are at some point rudely reminded that the company considers it more like a temporary license. Very few people mind services like Netflix or Spotify because it's extremely clear that you're paying for a month of access at a time. I doubt we're going to get much legal change in the short term but imagine how different the discussion would be if there was a clear labeling law which required either labeling things as rentals with a very clear time window or the company is required to either provide access or refund your money should their system lock you out.

nickbauman 10y ago
This is why generally I don't buy Amazon stuff for my kindle. 99% of my kindle contains stuff that was either free in the first place (ibilio, gutenberg proj, etc) or was purchased without DRM installed. I made an exception with Audible but I'm going to cancel it because while I love the idea of Audible, I've been racking up freebees every month and not pulling the trigger because I just don't have the time.
- acdha 10y ago
  I generally see it as a price threshold: when a Kindle book is much cheaper than the paperback I'm willing to accept getting less value, especially if it's something like book n in a series which I'm going to read on the plane and don't expect to reread.
bad_user 10y ago
The problem is of course that we as humans don't like to rent, we like to own and for good reasons. We only prefer to rent when overall the price is much better than owning or when we don't have a choice. Netflix and Spotify don't have a problem with their subscribers because the price is fair. $10 per month is fair for unlimited access to TV shows that you like. $10 is also fair for unlimited access to all the music that you want. And in fact both Netflix and Spotify don't really need DRM in order for them to work. I can already find all of that content on PirateBay, all of that content has already been pirated. And if I'm paying for Netflix, I might do so out of convenience and because pirating is illegal. But charge $10 for an eBook or $15-$30 for an audio book or $10 for a music album and that price is no longer fair with DRM. The problem is that these companies want to have their cake and eat it too, by creating the illusion of ownership, with people not realizing they are locked-in until it is too late. And that should be clearly illegal, I wonder when people will wake up.
- dhimes 10y ago
  But these prices haven't changed much in decades. Books have always cost that much, as have albums (the exception being textbooks). Discount vinyl record albums were US $5.99 in the 1970s. I have issues with DRM, but not because I find the prices exorbitant.
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    When you bought vinyl or CDs, you owned that. How can a temporary rental be worth the same?
    - tedunangst 10y ago
      Because it takes up less space in my house.
      - reitanqild 10y ago
        I say not valid because you can rip the physical media and store the original in cheap offsite storage for whoever inherits you => best of both worlds.
michaelmrose 10y ago
Probably nobody would be on board with paying 25-90 to rent a singular work for 5-20 years.

Noos 10y ago

The reason for DRM is to make casual piracy harder. Piracy will always exist, but if it goes beyond a certain point, it can disrupt and destroy the value of a created work. Creative work as it is is already devalued to the point where you are better off investing the hours spent into working at Mcdonalds and reaping a wage from that. If it gets prominent enough, things could get even worse. I mean, if all you make from a novel is a $5,000 advance for a years labor, and you find that not only can you not rely on ebook sales to earn that out, the pirated copy cannibalizes print sales too, it's not a good thing right?