5 ms·

Yeah, this right here. DRM might be technically impossible to get 100% right but you don't have to get it 100% right if you have regulation to back it up. The

Yeah, this right here. DRM might be technically impossible to get 100% right but you don't have to get it 100% right if you have regulation to back it up. The alternative is that there is no way to protect IP on the web, which means that there is no incentive to transmit IP over the web which takes a shitload of value off the table. These anti-DRM arguments smack of blind ideology.

esigs 9y ago
"But if someone goes around your DRM and doesn't violate any other laws, the non-aggression pact means that you couldn't use the W3C standardised DRM as a route to legally shut them down. That would protect security researchers, it would protect people analyzing video to add subtitles and other assistive features, it would protect archivists who had the legal right to make copies, and it would protect people making new browsers." This is a major part of the argument being made here and helps to close the gap between blind ideology and serious issue.
- weeksie 9y ago
  That's a perfectly reasonable point (which I agree with). It's naive to dismiss the concerns of content creators out of hand, but surely there's a middle ground we could get to legally over what constitutes fair use (or fair cracking?) when it comes to DRM.
  - esigs 9y ago
    Agreed. I think what the EFF is saying her though is that the claimed protections for content creators is just a cover for anti competitive behavior. If they would agree to only enforce DRM/DMCA laws on people abusing copyright laws it would be easier to get behind it. Unfortunately, we have no protections on one side, and anti competitive shinanigans on the other.
wolco 9y ago
IP delivered in other forms will be converted to online by smaller players if that activity was legal. We would see more content not less.
simion314 9y ago
IT is ideology, you should check the gog.com entry in wikipedia, DRM does not work, the movies and games still get cracked so what DRM gives the users? DRMed games are slower, cause issues for legitimate customers, add the risk that in future the game will stop working and it will be illegal to patch or mod it. For video it adds hardware requirements like I must buy a new CPU from Intel. There is no benefit for the users, content is still easy to pirate. the only advantage is that they can now use the law to cause problems for people that want to use their legitimate copy as they want and for software maybe they want to also modify it(If I bought this game it should not be illegal for me to mess about install a mod or fix a crash)
- weeksie 9y ago
  Nobody said they don't get cracked but it's far easier to pay $10/month for a Netflix subscription than it is to hunt down rips of everything on there. If there was no DRM you could just save the movie to your HD with little effort. Enough people pay for streaming services to make them a viable business model. That's all the empirical data you need to show that DRM does work for its indented purpose.
  - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
    > If there was no DRM you could just save the movie to your HD with little effort. ...after subscribing to the streaming service. At which point they have your money. And it's not like you can cancel your subscription after that because then you wouldn't get new content, which is the entire point of having a streaming service instead of watching the same pile of old DVDs you've had since 1998.
  - yorwba 9y ago
    I'm pretty sure people would pay for streaming services even if a DRM-free copy were easily available. Why? Because streaming a movie is no fun when the server can't deliver the necessary bandwidth. Maintaining an infrastructure that can handle streaming at the scale of Netflix costs money no pirate bay will ever be able to afford. So streaming services could still compete with the free offering based on quality of service.
AnthonyMouse 9y ago
> DRM might be technically impossible to get 100% right but you don't have to get it 100% right if you have regulation to back it up. You do if you don't want the material to show up on pirate sites, which is why they claim they want it. > The alternative is that there is no way to protect IP on the web Protect it from what? It can't be posting the material to pirate sites because it's already there. It can't be preventing users from making a fair use copy because that isn't a thing to legitimately want protection from.
fragmede 9y ago
There simply is no way to protect IP on the web, and refusing to understand that is burying-your-head-in-sand levels of myopia. If that takes "value" off the table, then it can come off the table, capitalism be damned. You can try and legislate DRM all you want, but like a law to make pi=3 or enacting laws to declare that water not be wet, it is the wrong thing to legislate.

esigs 9y ago

"But if someone goes around your DRM and doesn't violate any other laws, the non-aggression pact means that you couldn't use the W3C standardised DRM as a route to legally shut them down. That would protect security researchers, it would protect people analyzing video to add subtitles and other assistive features, it would protect archivists who had the legal right to make copies, and it would protect people making new browsers." This is a major part of the argument being made here and helps to close the gap between blind ideology and serious issue.

weeksie 9y ago
That's a perfectly reasonable point (which I agree with). It's naive to dismiss the concerns of content creators out of hand, but surely there's a middle ground we could get to legally over what constitutes fair use (or fair cracking?) when it comes to DRM.
- esigs 9y ago
  Agreed. I think what the EFF is saying her though is that the claimed protections for content creators is just a cover for anti competitive behavior. If they would agree to only enforce DRM/DMCA laws on people abusing copyright laws it would be easier to get behind it. Unfortunately, we have no protections on one side, and anti competitive shinanigans on the other.

wolco 9y ago

IP delivered in other forms will be converted to online by smaller players if that activity was legal. We would see more content not less.

simion314 9y ago

IT is ideology, you should check the gog.com entry in wikipedia, DRM does not work, the movies and games still get cracked so what DRM gives the users? DRMed games are slower, cause issues for legitimate customers, add the risk that in future the game will stop working and it will be illegal to patch or mod it. For video it adds hardware requirements like I must buy a new CPU from Intel. There is no benefit for the users, content is still easy to pirate. the only advantage is that they can now use the law to cause problems for people that want to use their legitimate copy as they want and for software maybe they want to also modify it(If I bought this game it should not be illegal for me to mess about install a mod or fix a crash)

weeksie 9y ago
Nobody said they don't get cracked but it's far easier to pay $10/month for a Netflix subscription than it is to hunt down rips of everything on there. If there was no DRM you could just save the movie to your HD with little effort. Enough people pay for streaming services to make them a viable business model. That's all the empirical data you need to show that DRM does work for its indented purpose.
- AnthonyMouse 9y ago
  > If there was no DRM you could just save the movie to your HD with little effort. ...after subscribing to the streaming service. At which point they have your money. And it's not like you can cancel your subscription after that because then you wouldn't get new content, which is the entire point of having a streaming service instead of watching the same pile of old DVDs you've had since 1998.
- yorwba 9y ago
  I'm pretty sure people would pay for streaming services even if a DRM-free copy were easily available. Why? Because streaming a movie is no fun when the server can't deliver the necessary bandwidth. Maintaining an infrastructure that can handle streaming at the scale of Netflix costs money no pirate bay will ever be able to afford. So streaming services could still compete with the free offering based on quality of service.

AnthonyMouse 9y ago

> DRM might be technically impossible to get 100% right but you don't have to get it 100% right if you have regulation to back it up. You do if you don't want the material to show up on pirate sites, which is why they claim they want it. > The alternative is that there is no way to protect IP on the web Protect it from what? It can't be posting the material to pirate sites because it's already there. It can't be preventing users from making a fair use copy because that isn't a thing to legitimately want protection from.

fragmede 9y ago

There simply is no way to protect IP on the web, and refusing to understand that is burying-your-head-in-sand levels of myopia. If that takes "value" off the table, then it can come off the table, capitalism be damned. You can try and legislate DRM all you want, but like a law to make pi=3 or enacting laws to declare that water not be wet, it is the wrong thing to legislate.