3 ms·

Aside from the fact that your wrong about the BBC the issue itself is not a "free market problem" because copyright only exists because of government interfere

by syshum 10y ago

Aside from the fact that your wrong about the BBC the issue itself is not a "free market problem" because copyright only exists because of government interference. Government created the "right" DRM is protecting against. In a pure free market, there is no copyright, thus no need for DRM to protect a right that does not exist

0xcde4c3db 10y ago
DRM schemes effectively allow the implementer to invent their own rules well beyond what copyright law specifically reserves (e.g. restrictions on resale and lending, ability to create their own licensing regime to publish on a given platform), so I don't see how DRM depends on government intervention. DRM is already defined more by business and technical considerations than by the law. If anything, it seems to me that draconian DRM schemes would be more desirable to vendors if they didn't also have copyright lawsuits in their arsenal.
- syshum 10y ago
  What keeps DRM in play though is it is illegal to distrbute tools to circumvent DRM So company like Slysoft, Replay, the devs of DeCSS, etc get sued out of existence when they create software that circumvents DRM the cat and mouse game of DRM only works if you have government legal backing hamstringing the anti-drm crowd. With out Anti-Circumvention laws there would be software on the open market to bypass every known DRM about 48 hours after it is release if not sooner
  - 0xcde4c3db 10y ago
    I see how that's supposed to work, but I don't think that's how it happens in practice, and hence doesn't explain much about the motivation behind actually bothering to deploy DRM. Proto-DRM (copy protection, lockout chips, dongles) was in play decades before anticircumvention laws, and as far as I've seen those laws have little practical value in stopping circumvention anyway. They seem to be primarily used for extra charges against vendors of "fully loaded" hardware (e.g. consoles and media players preloaded with illegally copied content). When governments are leveraged to go after pure circumvention tools, the Streisand effect usually kicks in and ensures that the necessary code and keys are spread far and wide. The main place where DRM actually has teeth is in applications where connectivity and an account are required, such as streaming media services (i.e. the primary application of EME) and online gaming. In that case, the vendor can frequently update anticircumvention measures in the client and deactivate accounts (or, in the case of vendor-managed platforms like game consoles, ban the actual device) that fail enough checks.

by syshum 10y ago

0xcde4c3db 10y ago

DRM schemes effectively allow the implementer to invent their own rules well beyond what copyright law specifically reserves (e.g. restrictions on resale and lending, ability to create their own licensing regime to publish on a given platform), so I don't see how DRM depends on government intervention. DRM is already defined more by business and technical considerations than by the law. If anything, it seems to me that draconian DRM schemes would be more desirable to vendors if they didn't also have copyright lawsuits in their arsenal.

syshum 10y ago
What keeps DRM in play though is it is illegal to distrbute tools to circumvent DRM So company like Slysoft, Replay, the devs of DeCSS, etc get sued out of existence when they create software that circumvents DRM the cat and mouse game of DRM only works if you have government legal backing hamstringing the anti-drm crowd. With out Anti-Circumvention laws there would be software on the open market to bypass every known DRM about 48 hours after it is release if not sooner
- 0xcde4c3db 10y ago
  I see how that's supposed to work, but I don't think that's how it happens in practice, and hence doesn't explain much about the motivation behind actually bothering to deploy DRM. Proto-DRM (copy protection, lockout chips, dongles) was in play decades before anticircumvention laws, and as far as I've seen those laws have little practical value in stopping circumvention anyway. They seem to be primarily used for extra charges against vendors of "fully loaded" hardware (e.g. consoles and media players preloaded with illegally copied content). When governments are leveraged to go after pure circumvention tools, the Streisand effect usually kicks in and ensures that the necessary code and keys are spread far and wide. The main place where DRM actually has teeth is in applications where connectivity and an account are required, such as streaming media services (i.e. the primary application of EME) and online gaming. In that case, the vendor can frequently update anticircumvention measures in the client and deactivate accounts (or, in the case of vendor-managed platforms like game consoles, ban the actual device) that fail enough checks.