6 ms·

>Moreover, if it works on Firefox/Linux, how can they prevent someone grabbing the video from X and the audio from Alsa? What is the usefulness of DRM in the fi

by Toenex 10y ago

>Moreover, if it works on Firefox/Linux, how can they prevent someone grabbing the video from X and the audio from Alsa? What is the usefulness of DRM in the first place, in this case? This is such an important flaw in all DRM. At some point all this digital wonderment has to be turned in to light and noise. This is the weakest point in the chain and it only takes one person with a decent re-recording setup to create a copy and then distribute it for any DRM to be bypassed. A £50 mic setup in a home studio will allow a good enough copy of most pop music to be made. Even if the hardware was in on the DRM game (looking at you Apple), my ears and eyes are not.

sgift 10y ago
That's nothing new: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_hole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_hole DRM is not there to make it impossible, but to make it inconvenient, to copy the things, so as long as it is "harder" with DRM than without it will persist.
- loudmax 10y ago
  Agreed. They don't need to make it impossible, they just need to make it inconvenient enough so for most users, copying stuff out of DRM isn't worth the hassle. This cuts both ways. It's more convenient to watch a movie from a file on a NAS than it is to watch a DVD, especially if the DVD has unskipable ads or is coded for the wrong region.
  - sgift 10y ago
    > It's more convenient to watch a movie from a file on a NAS than it is to watch a DVD, especially if the DVD has unskipable ads or is coded for the wrong region. Absolutely. One of the reasons for Netflix success is that it is so simple to use compared to alternatives. Open, click, watch.
  - Toenex 10y ago
    Yes, but the question is do you even need the DRM or is the 'copy hassle' sufficient? You only need one person willing and able to subvert the DRM to make and then distribute an unrestricted version. Individuals don't need to 'unDRM' content themselves it's out there if they want and know how to get it. I think that what DRM provides is the illusion of control. This illusion is good enough to allow Netflix and similar companies to gain access to other peoples content upon which they build a very convenient system for media consumption by anybody who can use a TV.
    - ams6110 10y ago
      Sure, but again, for most people Netflix is cheap enough and simple enough that they won't even bother looking for torrents or other "illegal" versions. That in itself takes some time and know-how that the average consumer just doesn't have or want to bother with.
  - lewiscollard 10y ago
    > They don't need to make it impossible, they just need to make it inconvenient enough so for most users, copying stuff out of DRM isn't worth the hassle. I disagree. It merely requires one clever person to crack it and then it's available to anyone over BitTorrent within hours. Any functioning DRM scheme must make it practically impossible for everyone.
- jasonkostempski 10y ago
  Funny thing is, it's 10 times harder to get the DRM'd version than the clean version.
- tskaiser 10y ago
  The problem is that, at least for stuff like music and video, the "harder" part is an illusion for most popular stuff given the sheer size of the demography watching. Out of so many people there is bound to be quite a few who decides to do this right away anyway. Especially as the methods given can essentially be automated once you got the setup. This means that DRM is, by all accounts, completely and utterly useless for the given media. Meanwhile people who desires to legitimately consume the content are hit by the side-effects of draconian DRM due to no fault of their own. It becomes easier to consume the pirated rather than the actual content, making the pirated content a superior product. Money doesn't even factor into this equation.
  - intransigent 10y ago
    Be nice and play ball, or you'll be subjected to a set-top-box appliance again. (it puts the lotion on its skin or it gets the hose again.)
  - bisby 10y ago
    I was trying to watch rick and morty on linux the other day. popcorn time was the easiest route to take. I did the free 7 days of hulu. but cancelled immediately because their flash player couldnt make it more than 30 seconds without crashing. I eventually settled on Amazon Video (which I had to spoof being chrome on windows to get it to allow HD). I really dislike that my wife can't watch the videos I purchased on amazon video even though we have a linked account. So the only place I could find that would actually give me the content in exchange for money, wont even let other people in my household watch it. The only downside to piracy at that point was any ethical/moral/legal issues. But those wont stop people for long if the issues with other methods become too unbearable.
    - tskaiser 10y ago
      Exactly, and the problem with DRM then becomes that, outside making the pirated content a superior product, it outright antagonizes the legitimate consumers. In short money is poured into making the product less desirable by making it harder to acquire and consume legally. Of course this is all lamenting how utterly bonkers DRM is conceptually. It still leaves the problem of pirates unaddressed. To survive in the digital age we need a debate about how to make a business model where this problem is a fact of reality rather than putting on blinders and saying it can be prevented.
jstanley 10y ago
Just wait until a special brain implant is required in order to listen to DRM'd music :)
- ajford 10y ago
  Don't... don't give them ideas... They come up with such crappy ideas on their own, we don't need this horror suggested to them.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    Why expect this won't be demanded functionality in any brain-computer interface that supports media playback? The technology isn't there yet; when it arrives, the rentiers will be there to meet it.
phs318u 10y ago
:-) You just reminded me of this classic. Hope the younger readers enjoy... "DRM Helmets: An idea whose time has come" http://archive.oreilly.com/1540.html http://archive.oreilly.com/1540.html
nothrabannosir 10y ago
DRM isn't here for ("against") the consumer; it's done to control the media playback device vendors (screens, tivos, ...). There's a great essay on this which I can't find right now but it comes down to: even with flawed drm, content providers have control over the media devices market. Planned obsolence of playback media, etc etc. Once you look at drm from this perspective, it suddenly makes a lot more sense. A good counter example to the incompetence-over-malice rule of thumb. Edit: this, btw, is also why you can't meaningfully "opt out" of DRM. It isn't about you. (Edit 2: I now realise that without proof this is nothing more than a conspiracy theory, and being plausible just makes it more susceptible to confirmation bias.. if someone has the actual essay that might shed some light on this :p )
a3n 10y ago
> Even if the hardware was in on the DRM game (looking at you Apple), my ears and eyes are not. Until they start selling the iEye. People will buy it.

by Toenex 10y ago

sgift 10y ago

That's nothing new: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_hole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_hole DRM is not there to make it impossible, but to make it inconvenient, to copy the things, so as long as it is "harder" with DRM than without it will persist.

loudmax 10y ago
Agreed. They don't need to make it impossible, they just need to make it inconvenient enough so for most users, copying stuff out of DRM isn't worth the hassle. This cuts both ways. It's more convenient to watch a movie from a file on a NAS than it is to watch a DVD, especially if the DVD has unskipable ads or is coded for the wrong region.
- sgift 10y ago
  > It's more convenient to watch a movie from a file on a NAS than it is to watch a DVD, especially if the DVD has unskipable ads or is coded for the wrong region. Absolutely. One of the reasons for Netflix success is that it is so simple to use compared to alternatives. Open, click, watch.
- Toenex 10y ago
  Yes, but the question is do you even need the DRM or is the 'copy hassle' sufficient? You only need one person willing and able to subvert the DRM to make and then distribute an unrestricted version. Individuals don't need to 'unDRM' content themselves it's out there if they want and know how to get it. I think that what DRM provides is the illusion of control. This illusion is good enough to allow Netflix and similar companies to gain access to other peoples content upon which they build a very convenient system for media consumption by anybody who can use a TV.
  - ams6110 10y ago
    Sure, but again, for most people Netflix is cheap enough and simple enough that they won't even bother looking for torrents or other "illegal" versions. That in itself takes some time and know-how that the average consumer just doesn't have or want to bother with.
- lewiscollard 10y ago
  > They don't need to make it impossible, they just need to make it inconvenient enough so for most users, copying stuff out of DRM isn't worth the hassle. I disagree. It merely requires one clever person to crack it and then it's available to anyone over BitTorrent within hours. Any functioning DRM scheme must make it practically impossible for everyone.
jasonkostempski 10y ago
Funny thing is, it's 10 times harder to get the DRM'd version than the clean version.
tskaiser 10y ago
The problem is that, at least for stuff like music and video, the "harder" part is an illusion for most popular stuff given the sheer size of the demography watching. Out of so many people there is bound to be quite a few who decides to do this right away anyway. Especially as the methods given can essentially be automated once you got the setup. This means that DRM is, by all accounts, completely and utterly useless for the given media. Meanwhile people who desires to legitimately consume the content are hit by the side-effects of draconian DRM due to no fault of their own. It becomes easier to consume the pirated rather than the actual content, making the pirated content a superior product. Money doesn't even factor into this equation.
- intransigent 10y ago
  Be nice and play ball, or you'll be subjected to a set-top-box appliance again. (it puts the lotion on its skin or it gets the hose again.)
- bisby 10y ago
  I was trying to watch rick and morty on linux the other day. popcorn time was the easiest route to take. I did the free 7 days of hulu. but cancelled immediately because their flash player couldnt make it more than 30 seconds without crashing. I eventually settled on Amazon Video (which I had to spoof being chrome on windows to get it to allow HD). I really dislike that my wife can't watch the videos I purchased on amazon video even though we have a linked account. So the only place I could find that would actually give me the content in exchange for money, wont even let other people in my household watch it. The only downside to piracy at that point was any ethical/moral/legal issues. But those wont stop people for long if the issues with other methods become too unbearable.
  - tskaiser 10y ago
    Exactly, and the problem with DRM then becomes that, outside making the pirated content a superior product, it outright antagonizes the legitimate consumers. In short money is poured into making the product less desirable by making it harder to acquire and consume legally. Of course this is all lamenting how utterly bonkers DRM is conceptually. It still leaves the problem of pirates unaddressed. To survive in the digital age we need a debate about how to make a business model where this problem is a fact of reality rather than putting on blinders and saying it can be prevented.

jstanley 10y ago

Just wait until a special brain implant is required in order to listen to DRM'd music :)

ajford 10y ago
Don't... don't give them ideas... They come up with such crappy ideas on their own, we don't need this horror suggested to them.
- throwanem 10y ago
  Why expect this won't be demanded functionality in any brain-computer interface that supports media playback? The technology isn't there yet; when it arrives, the rentiers will be there to meet it.

phs318u 10y ago

:-) You just reminded me of this classic. Hope the younger readers enjoy... "DRM Helmets: An idea whose time has come" http://archive.oreilly.com/1540.html http://archive.oreilly.com/1540.html

nothrabannosir 10y ago

DRM isn't here for ("against") the consumer; it's done to control the media playback device vendors (screens, tivos, ...). There's a great essay on this which I can't find right now but it comes down to: even with flawed drm, content providers have control over the media devices market. Planned obsolence of playback media, etc etc. Once you look at drm from this perspective, it suddenly makes a lot more sense. A good counter example to the incompetence-over-malice rule of thumb. Edit: this, btw, is also why you can't meaningfully "opt out" of DRM. It isn't about you. (Edit 2: I now realise that without proof this is nothing more than a conspiracy theory, and being plausible just makes it more susceptible to confirmation bias.. if someone has the actual essay that might shed some light on this :p )

a3n 10y ago

> Even if the hardware was in on the DRM game (looking at you Apple), my ears and eyes are not. Until they start selling the iEye. People will buy it.