5 ms·

This is like saying door locks are pointless because you can break a window and climb through. Protecting media copyright isn't a black or white thing like cry

by grinich 10y ago

This is like saying door locks are pointless because you can break a window and climb through. Protecting media copyright isn't a black or white thing like crypto. It's about compromises to drive behavior and consumer spending with convenience.

amelius 10y ago
What exactly do you think this DRM will stop? 1. People who have access to the content can usually see it over and over again (when they have a subscription to a service like Netflix). DRM will do nothing here. 2. People who don't have access to the content can't even see the DRM'ed version of the file, so DRM will do nothing here either. 3. People who want to pirate (illegally distribute) the content have advanced tools and knowledge to circumvent DRM, so DRM is of no use here again.
- recursive 10y ago
  Whether you have access to content isn't an immutable fact of your genetics. People can freely move between groups 1 and 2. That's the whole point. For instance, I didn't have access to netflix content, and then I signed up for a netflix account and paid them money, and now I do have access.
  - unicornporn 10y ago
    > Whether you have access to content isn't an immutable fact of your genetics. People can freely move between groups 1 and 2. That's the whole point. So you're saying people could move to another jurisdiction to be able to watch their favorite show on Netflix? Yeah, that truly sounds like freedom to me. Or am I misinterpretating you?
    - pferde 10y ago
      Yes, you are misrepresentating(sic!) him. The "move between groups 1 and 2" was meant as decision to start paying for a service, or to stop paying for a service, not a physical move. In other words, voting with your wallet.
    - recursive 10y ago
      You're misinterpretating me. Some people already live in jurisdictions to which Netflix permits distribution of their favorite show. Those people can decide to pay for access or not. It's also true that some people don't live in such places. But that doesn't matter. You said that DRM serves no purpose. For some it may not. But for some people it does.
- Silhouette 10y ago
  1. People who have access to the content can usually see it over and over again (when they have a subscription to a service like Netflix). DRM will do nothing here. Sure it will. It will stop people writing a script to download as much as they can get away with in a single month and then cancelling since they have enough content to keep them going for several more months without paying for them. 3. People who want to pirate (illegally distribute) the content have advanced tools and knowledge to circumvent DRM, so DRM is of no use here again. That is a big assumption, and in many cases not a correct one. The major online DRM systems today are fairly robust, and if anyone has a crack for some of them, they're keeping their cards very close to their chests. The leaks of major movies that you find on torrent sites and the like are usually from other sources.
  - schrodinger 10y ago
    There's always the analog loophole. If you can watch it on your screen, you can record it.
    - infinite8s 10y ago
      If you discount the cost of your time to zero. Otherwise it's not even worth a minimum wage job.
      - flukus 10y ago
        It only needs to be done by one person, not every viewer. And yes, the value of much of my time is effectively zero. The same is true for most people.
        MBCook 10y ago
        That's why we have laws to apply negative externalities like very large jail sentences if you're caught distributing a file that you created by taping a movie off-screen.
        10y ago
- taneq 10y ago
  You missed: 2b. People who don't have access to the content, but want to watch it for free.
jimktrains2 10y ago
> It's about compromises to drive behavior and consumer spending with convenience. You mean grabbing a DRM-free (i.e. pirated) copy so that I can watch it at my leasure and on devices of my choosing, even if I have access to it via other legit means?

by grinich 10y ago

amelius 10y ago

What exactly do you think this DRM will stop? 1. People who have access to the content can usually see it over and over again (when they have a subscription to a service like Netflix). DRM will do nothing here. 2. People who don't have access to the content can't even see the DRM'ed version of the file, so DRM will do nothing here either. 3. People who want to pirate (illegally distribute) the content have advanced tools and knowledge to circumvent DRM, so DRM is of no use here again.

recursive 10y ago
Whether you have access to content isn't an immutable fact of your genetics. People can freely move between groups 1 and 2. That's the whole point. For instance, I didn't have access to netflix content, and then I signed up for a netflix account and paid them money, and now I do have access.
- unicornporn 10y ago
  > Whether you have access to content isn't an immutable fact of your genetics. People can freely move between groups 1 and 2. That's the whole point. So you're saying people could move to another jurisdiction to be able to watch their favorite show on Netflix? Yeah, that truly sounds like freedom to me. Or am I misinterpretating you?
  - pferde 10y ago
    Yes, you are misrepresentating(sic!) him. The "move between groups 1 and 2" was meant as decision to start paying for a service, or to stop paying for a service, not a physical move. In other words, voting with your wallet.
  - recursive 10y ago
    You're misinterpretating me. Some people already live in jurisdictions to which Netflix permits distribution of their favorite show. Those people can decide to pay for access or not. It's also true that some people don't live in such places. But that doesn't matter. You said that DRM serves no purpose. For some it may not. But for some people it does.
Silhouette 10y ago
1. People who have access to the content can usually see it over and over again (when they have a subscription to a service like Netflix). DRM will do nothing here. Sure it will. It will stop people writing a script to download as much as they can get away with in a single month and then cancelling since they have enough content to keep them going for several more months without paying for them. 3. People who want to pirate (illegally distribute) the content have advanced tools and knowledge to circumvent DRM, so DRM is of no use here again. That is a big assumption, and in many cases not a correct one. The major online DRM systems today are fairly robust, and if anyone has a crack for some of them, they're keeping their cards very close to their chests. The leaks of major movies that you find on torrent sites and the like are usually from other sources.
- schrodinger 10y ago
  There's always the analog loophole. If you can watch it on your screen, you can record it.
  - infinite8s 10y ago
    If you discount the cost of your time to zero. Otherwise it's not even worth a minimum wage job.
    - flukus 10y ago
      It only needs to be done by one person, not every viewer. And yes, the value of much of my time is effectively zero. The same is true for most people.
      - MBCook 10y ago
        That's why we have laws to apply negative externalities like very large jail sentences if you're caught distributing a file that you created by taping a movie off-screen.
        10y ago
taneq 10y ago
You missed: 2b. People who don't have access to the content, but want to watch it for free.

jimktrains2 10y ago

> It's about compromises to drive behavior and consumer spending with convenience. You mean grabbing a DRM-free (i.e. pirated) copy so that I can watch it at my leasure and on devices of my choosing, even if I have access to it via other legit means?