2 ms·

> The media companies have made it clear that’s not happening without DRM. If people were actively boycotting anything that uses DRM and were bawling out media

> The media companies have made it clear that’s not happening without DRM. If people were actively boycotting anything that uses DRM and were bawling out media companies that use DRM, there would soon appear media companies that provide a "no-DRM media package". As soon as these companies were making big money with DRM-free content, I am pretty sure the large media companies would in the long run give up their stupid idea that DRM is necessary. DRM is only necessary because there exist (too many) people who don't have a zero-tolerance policy against DRM.

emodendroket 9y ago
Yes, if you can achieve a massive boycott you might see some success. I don't see anything like a broad-based movement to that end going on right now.
MBCook 9y ago
> DRM is only necessary because there exist (too many) people who don't have a zero-tolerance policy against DRM. Really? I can see a pretty good argument for why it SHOULD be legal. If I want to post some content I make online why shouldn’t I be able to try to protect it? And let’s not go through the ‘But Sony rootkit!’ stuff. You can make safe DRM. Rooting someone’s computer is already a crime, that’s why Sony in trouble. > As soon as these companies were making big money with DRM-free content... Far too many people see nothing wrong with piracy. It works on music because it’s so cheap. I don’t think you’ll get 99c TV shows or especially movies any time soon. It probably isn’t sustainable, especially for movies. So people will pirate, out of cheapness or inability to pay or ‘righteousness’ or whatever. It’s not going to happen. > ... I am pretty sure the large media companies would in the long run give up their stupid idea that DRM is necessary. Why should they, from a business perspective, give up control they have now with basically no downside? I don’t even see a moral argument they should give it up. Now I agree we need better fair use laws, and security people should be able to poke at DRM to make sure it’s not doing evil things. But I don’t see why society, under moral or business obligations, could support outlawing DRM.
- MBCook 9y ago
  Well that comment went as well as I expected. Can someone give a good argument why someone shouldn’t be able to use DRM to protect their content?
  - yarrel 9y ago
    Because it does not allow them to protect their content. Their content will still be distributed without their consent, because DRM is broken as quickly as it is implemented. And they will not be the one using DRM to control distribution of their content, the DRM vendor will be. Next: why shouldn't I use the magic beans the mafia are offering me to protect my content?
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      That doesn't really answer the question, does it? If someone wants to lock up their bike with an ineffective lock, it might be a bad idea, but they're not outside of their moral rights to do so.
    - MBCook 9y ago
      > Next: why shouldn't I use the magic beans the mafia are offering me to protect my content? You don’t seriously expect people to engage in a discussion like this do you? As emodendroket pointed out the rest of your comment is the argument against any kind of lock ever. It’s a false dichotomy.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    It goes against most people's notions of fairness to pay for a product and still have it encumbered with a lot of limitations. I think the case is stronger if we're talking about streams or rentals, but of course DRM is hardly limited to those.
    - MBCook 9y ago
      But we’ve always had that. I mean every video tape I ever watched as a child had FBI warnings explaining that there were limits on what you could do with it. The only difference is that the videotapes can now try and enforce it themselves.

emodendroket 9y ago

Yes, if you can achieve a massive boycott you might see some success. I don't see anything like a broad-based movement to that end going on right now.

MBCook 9y ago

> DRM is only necessary because there exist (too many) people who don't have a zero-tolerance policy against DRM. Really? I can see a pretty good argument for why it SHOULD be legal. If I want to post some content I make online why shouldn’t I be able to try to protect it? And let’s not go through the ‘But Sony rootkit!’ stuff. You can make safe DRM. Rooting someone’s computer is already a crime, that’s why Sony in trouble. > As soon as these companies were making big money with DRM-free content... Far too many people see nothing wrong with piracy. It works on music because it’s so cheap. I don’t think you’ll get 99c TV shows or especially movies any time soon. It probably isn’t sustainable, especially for movies. So people will pirate, out of cheapness or inability to pay or ‘righteousness’ or whatever. It’s not going to happen. > ... I am pretty sure the large media companies would in the long run give up their stupid idea that DRM is necessary. Why should they, from a business perspective, give up control they have now with basically no downside? I don’t even see a moral argument they should give it up. Now I agree we need better fair use laws, and security people should be able to poke at DRM to make sure it’s not doing evil things. But I don’t see why society, under moral or business obligations, could support outlawing DRM.

MBCook 9y ago
Well that comment went as well as I expected. Can someone give a good argument why someone shouldn’t be able to use DRM to protect their content?
- yarrel 9y ago
  Because it does not allow them to protect their content. Their content will still be distributed without their consent, because DRM is broken as quickly as it is implemented. And they will not be the one using DRM to control distribution of their content, the DRM vendor will be. Next: why shouldn't I use the magic beans the mafia are offering me to protect my content?
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    That doesn't really answer the question, does it? If someone wants to lock up their bike with an ineffective lock, it might be a bad idea, but they're not outside of their moral rights to do so.
  - MBCook 9y ago
    > Next: why shouldn't I use the magic beans the mafia are offering me to protect my content? You don’t seriously expect people to engage in a discussion like this do you? As emodendroket pointed out the rest of your comment is the argument against any kind of lock ever. It’s a false dichotomy.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  It goes against most people's notions of fairness to pay for a product and still have it encumbered with a lot of limitations. I think the case is stronger if we're talking about streams or rentals, but of course DRM is hardly limited to those.
  - MBCook 9y ago
    But we’ve always had that. I mean every video tape I ever watched as a child had FBI warnings explaining that there were limits on what you could do with it. The only difference is that the videotapes can now try and enforce it themselves.