4 ms·

> DRM sets conceptually equivalent restrictions on protected media as leases set on rented property. Not even remotely. At best, copyright law sets conceptual

> 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.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      > Conceivably, but 'what would be enforceable legally' is often a function of practicality and transaction costs I actually meant legally, not practically, that's why I wrote "legally". As in, you could not convince a judge to decide in your favour. > DRM enforcement isn't isomorphic to legal enforceability, but it's a reasonably good approximation. Nope, it's absolutely not. How would you legally prevent someone from diagnosing and fixing their own tractor if there were no DRM to do it for you?
      - anigbrowl 9y ago
        By contract, which happens all the time. It doesn't seem like you're interested in having a discussion so much as an argument, so have a nice day.
        zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
        So, how would you force someone to agree to that contract after you sold them the tractor?

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.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    > Conceivably, but 'what would be enforceable legally' is often a function of practicality and transaction costs I actually meant legally, not practically, that's why I wrote "legally". As in, you could not convince a judge to decide in your favour. > DRM enforcement isn't isomorphic to legal enforceability, but it's a reasonably good approximation. Nope, it's absolutely not. How would you legally prevent someone from diagnosing and fixing their own tractor if there were no DRM to do it for you?
    - anigbrowl 9y ago
      By contract, which happens all the time. It doesn't seem like you're interested in having a discussion so much as an argument, so have a nice day.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
        So, how would you force someone to agree to that contract after you sold them the tractor?