4 ms·

A better analogy would be to landlords rights vs. renters rights. DRM sets conceptually equivalent restrictions on protected media as leases set on rented prope

A better analogy would be to landlords rights vs. renters rights. DRM sets conceptually equivalent restrictions on protected media as leases set on rented property. The difference, of course, is that it is very hard/impossible to break the restrictions set by DRM, whereas the restrictions set by leases are hard to enforce. The problem that I see is that the language around DRM needs to change - you aren't buying that Kindle book, you are renting it from Amazon under a digitally-enforced lease. So DRM is protecting property - it's just not protecting consumers' property, since they effectively don't actually own the media in the first place.

bo1024 9y ago
I disagree with your premise, which makes the error pointed out in above posts -- accepting the idea of "intellectual property" as though it were analogous to physical property. But the reality is that there is no such thing as "owning" a copyrightable work of expression like Bob Dylan's lyrics. Instead, some people have temporary legal control over who may copy those lyrics and for what purpose. There is no moral or legal sense in which someone else "owns" those words on the page in front of me and I am not in any way "leasing" or "borrowing" the words. However, they may still try to restrict what I can do with those words. So DRM is about technologically limiting others' rights, usually in some way above and beyond legal limitations. For example, if you buy a DVD, you legally have the right to make copies for personal use, or e.g. use 30 seconds of footage in your own work of art. But DRM may prevent you from exercising those rights. However, I completely agree that it is misleading of companies to use the word "buy" when what you're acquiring remains under their control, not yours.
- jdormit 9y ago
  Yeah, "ownership" isn't really what's at stake here. I guess, "consumption" would be a better term? DRM limits the ways in which consumers' can consume media - specifically, it enforces copyright. I think we are on the same page about the questionable moral standing of copyright for digital artifacts.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    > DRM limits the ways in which consumers' can consume media - specifically, it enforces copyright. No, it doesn't. Copyright has concepts such as fair use. DRM does not enforce fair use.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      Put simply, DRM is a publisher's mechanism to restrict the use of a digital good in whatever way they like, which usually includes enforcing a subset of copyright laws that's beneficial to the publisher.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
> DRM sets conceptually equivalent restrictions on protected media as leases set on rented property. Not even remotely. At best, copyright law sets conceptually equivalent restrictions on licensed works as leases set on rented property. DRM sets conceptually equivalent restrictions on infested media as a gun-wielding robot that's installed in rented property with cameras in every corner that feed into the robot and with all of that remote-controlled by the landlord would set restrictions on your use of the rented property. Oh, and also, it's a criminal offense to try to do anything that would hinder the robot in doing its job. > So DRM is protecting property Just as a ban on private home ownership would be protecting property, yes. But not of the people that the propaganda is directed at.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  Hyperbole isn't helpful. DRM is simply the mechanization of the already-existing social relations. The coercion was already there, it's just automated now.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    No, it is not, that is exactly the point. There are tons of use cases that would be totally unenforcable legally, but are constantly being enforced through DRM nonetheless.
    - anigbrowl 9y ago
      Conceivably, but 'what would be enforceable legally' is often a function of practicality and transaction costs - that is, there are many infringements that publishers would ideally like to prevent, but don't bother because of the impracticality of doing so. Nobody tries to collect royalties from a street musician banging out Beatles tunes on a guitar, for example. I've gotta say that 10 years on HN has taught me not to trust the general opinions of hackers on legal matters and copyright especially, because few of them are interested in familiarizing themselves with the history and economic developments of the subject, which makes discussion about it almost impossible. In other words, you might be surprised at what would be enforceable legally if all cases could be fully worked out; it would likely be better than you expected in some regards and worse in others. DRM enforcement isn't isomorphic to legal enforceability, but it's a reasonably good approximation. I am not arguing in defense of the copyright system we have, which I would like to drastically change. I'm just saying that I think you're underestimating the legal complexities. This isn't your fault; I feel our legal institutions are failing partly because they have become so ridiculously complex and impenetrable to most people.

bo1024 9y ago

I disagree with your premise, which makes the error pointed out in above posts -- accepting the idea of "intellectual property" as though it were analogous to physical property. But the reality is that there is no such thing as "owning" a copyrightable work of expression like Bob Dylan's lyrics. Instead, some people have temporary legal control over who may copy those lyrics and for what purpose. There is no moral or legal sense in which someone else "owns" those words on the page in front of me and I am not in any way "leasing" or "borrowing" the words. However, they may still try to restrict what I can do with those words. So DRM is about technologically limiting others' rights, usually in some way above and beyond legal limitations. For example, if you buy a DVD, you legally have the right to make copies for personal use, or e.g. use 30 seconds of footage in your own work of art. But DRM may prevent you from exercising those rights. However, I completely agree that it is misleading of companies to use the word "buy" when what you're acquiring remains under their control, not yours.

jdormit 9y ago
Yeah, "ownership" isn't really what's at stake here. I guess, "consumption" would be a better term? DRM limits the ways in which consumers' can consume media - specifically, it enforces copyright. I think we are on the same page about the questionable moral standing of copyright for digital artifacts.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  > DRM limits the ways in which consumers' can consume media - specifically, it enforces copyright. No, it doesn't. Copyright has concepts such as fair use. DRM does not enforce fair use.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    Put simply, DRM is a publisher's mechanism to restrict the use of a digital good in whatever way they like, which usually includes enforcing a subset of copyright laws that's beneficial to the publisher.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago

> DRM sets conceptually equivalent restrictions on protected media as leases set on rented property. Not even remotely. At best, copyright law sets conceptually equivalent restrictions on licensed works as leases set on rented property. DRM sets conceptually equivalent restrictions on infested media as a gun-wielding robot that's installed in rented property with cameras in every corner that feed into the robot and with all of that remote-controlled by the landlord would set restrictions on your use of the rented property. Oh, and also, it's a criminal offense to try to do anything that would hinder the robot in doing its job. > So DRM is protecting property Just as a ban on private home ownership would be protecting property, yes. But not of the people that the propaganda is directed at.

anigbrowl 9y ago
Hyperbole isn't helpful. DRM is simply the mechanization of the already-existing social relations. The coercion was already there, it's just automated now.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  No, it is not, that is exactly the point. There are tons of use cases that would be totally unenforcable legally, but are constantly being enforced through DRM nonetheless.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    Conceivably, but 'what would be enforceable legally' is often a function of practicality and transaction costs - that is, there are many infringements that publishers would ideally like to prevent, but don't bother because of the impracticality of doing so. Nobody tries to collect royalties from a street musician banging out Beatles tunes on a guitar, for example. I've gotta say that 10 years on HN has taught me not to trust the general opinions of hackers on legal matters and copyright especially, because few of them are interested in familiarizing themselves with the history and economic developments of the subject, which makes discussion about it almost impossible. In other words, you might be surprised at what would be enforceable legally if all cases could be fully worked out; it would likely be better than you expected in some regards and worse in others. DRM enforcement isn't isomorphic to legal enforceability, but it's a reasonably good approximation. I am not arguing in defense of the copyright system we have, which I would like to drastically change. I'm just saying that I think you're underestimating the legal complexities. This isn't your fault; I feel our legal institutions are failing partly because they have become so ridiculously complex and impenetrable to most people.