3 ms·

I still control my machine. I just run software that I don't understand to get content to play. If I wasn't able to run a certain subset of software, i.e. DRM,

• madez 9y ago
  No, you do not control your machine. Controling your machine does not imply you always understand what it is doing, jusy like controling your car doesn't imply you always know exactly where it is and how it got there. You may give your keys to your spouse to drive somewhere and you trust that they do just that. Back to computers, that means when you run someones elses software you don't necessarily know how it is doing what it is doing and you trust it does what you hope it does, yet you could be in control. So when do you lose control? In the world of cars, when you do not have the choice whom to give your keys, when someone has the power to take your keys independently of what you want, then you do not have control. In the world of computers, DRM is to take your keys, or to never give them to you, in the first place. DRM has led to components in each and every PC that are built to be beyond the control of the owner. I don't see a big problem with a DRM-capable computer on it's own, however, I don't think it's ideal and would argue against it. But the _big_ problem starts when I cannot buy a computer without it, anymore. That is where we are.
  • ubernostrum 9y ago
    But the _big_ problem starts when I cannot buy a computer without it, anymore. So make one. There'll be a lot of things it won't be able to do, but nobody's going to put a gun to your head and order you to stop producing a DRM-free machine for yourself. Meanwhile, the "you don't control your machine" argument suffers from the same fundamental tension as many of the RMS/GNU/FSF positions: in the name of freeing you from restrictions, they impose restrictions. The GPL, in the name of protecting what you can do with the software, specifies some things you must never be allowed to do with the software. The hardcore anti-DRM position, in the name of protecting what you can do with the hardware, specifies some things you must never be allowed to do with the hardware. Now, that's not necessarily bad; there are arguments to be made that trading off a small amount of freedom to do a handful of things protects a large amount of freedom to do many things. But unfortunately that's not a type of argument RMS/GNU/FSF can admit to, because they frame things in absolutist moral terms. The absolutist cannot speak in terms of tradeoffs. To do so is to compromise the entire position and, worse, to open the door to others who might propose a different set of tradeoffs and argue that they're as reasonable as the absolutist's proposal; at that point, as the famous line goes, you're just haggling over your price. So if you want a computer with no DRM, by all means go and build one. Refuse to put anything in it that you don't absolutely control. You'll be giving up quite a few things, like being able to play back popular media, but if that's the tradeoff you want you certainly are free to go and have it. What you can't do is force others to abide by that; most people simply do not care that there are things in their computers not fully under their control, or if they reflect on it are willing to accept the tradeoff of, say, having hardware/software that will refuse to play certain media unless certain third-party-imposed conditions are met. You could argue that the overwhelming majority of them have never thought about this and probably wouldn't come to a rigorous and well-informed decision about it, but morally you have no inherent right to substitute your judgment of what's good for them in place of their judgment of what's good for them. The most you can do is build your own computer which does things the way you want, install only software that you personally trust to abide by your principles, and advocate for others to do the same.
    • shaan7 9y ago
      I think its pretty clear that there is no "moral right" (as if such a think even exists) about that, but we need to continue advocating others about how artificial such restrictions are. I know people who genuinely think its just not technically possible to play 4K Netflix video on Firefox while the reality is that its just an artificial restriction. And if people don't oppose that, its going to get more universal. It sucks that instead of software empowering users, we're really just moving backwards.
    • dsacco 9y ago
      This is an excellent comment, to which I might add: framing a persuasive argument based on the position that DRM (or nearly anything) is an unequivocal bad is very nearly guaranteed to be untenable and inherently inconsistent. If you truly believe that DRM is harmful in general, you need to construct an argument that appeals to educating people about which practical freedoms they care about will be lost. At that point you need to accept that they might not care about those freedoms. But if you construct an argument from the axiom that users shouldn't introduce anything into their systems they can't reasonably control, you've fundamentally isolated almost everyone who you want to convince. Of those remaining to listen, most will typically already be on your side end evangelizing the same thing. In order to be consistent, arguing from a core axiom of user freedom and choice requires sacrificing things like hardware security modules, which are a giant leap forward for user security. You can have the absolute freedom to do anything if you'd like, but you might find that there are relatively few ways to apply that freedom if you do. The alternative is a balanced approach: you don't start from an axiom that users need to be inherently free, and that some amount of tradeoff in freedom is beneficial and desirable. Then you go on to demonstrate why DRM in particular is bad in general. But this is a much weaker position in general, and framed this way you'll have fewer people to argue with.
      • madez 9y ago
        Your comment and its parent are both very good. I agree with you. Furthermore, there are conditions under which I consider DRM tolerable. However, if DRM leads to a second hidden operating system in my computer, that has complete control over the machine, then I complain. Also, DRM has an effect on the larger scale. Cultural heritage belongs to everybody. DRM might be used to effectively locked it away in a timeless manner. The right to exclusively make money with a book, song, movie, game or whatever must end at some point, and there need to be effective measures to preserve the works for the next generations independent of the creator. There are good reasons why we have libraries and museums. If DRM prevents that, then I complain. This is not circle-jerking nor evangelizing. The arguments are very real and not theoretical. This position is not fundamentalist. I'm not against DRM because of some blind axiomatic position that is only relevant to a few. To summarize, DRM is considerably less problematic if, first, it is seperated and isolated from the rest of the machine, and, second, it opens up after some time and releases the content.