4 ms·

> there's no point to DRM. I still can torrent any content I want DRM appears to be useless because you are incorrectly assuming DRM's purpose is to stop or re

by pdkl95 8y ago

> there's no point to DRM. I still can torrent any content I want DRM appears to be useless because you are incorrectly assuming DRM's purpose is to stop or reduce piracy. DRM is and always has been about controlling the playback platform. Media companies like DRM so the can force anyone making a player to not implement features they don't like. Their ability to control how media is used was severely limited when the Betamax case[1] (1984) established that using a home video tape recorder to time shift was is fair use. Unable to legally control how media is used, media companies hade regularly attempted to establish and require a DRM scheme they could use to technologically control use. The proper response is to tell the media companies their right to control a copyright protected work ends at the first sale[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Unive.... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

bogomipz 8y ago
>"DRM appears to be useless because you are incorrectly assuming DRM's purpose is to stop or reduce piracy. DRM is and always has been about controlling the playback platform." I'm no fan of DRM or the idiots in Hollywood but isn't "controlling the playback" a means to control piracy? Why must they be mutually exclusive? >"Media companies like DRM so the can force anyone making a player to not implement features they don't like." I'm curious is there any evidence of this? How would the Hollywood studios even be aware of all of the new hardware devices?
- EvanAnderson 8y ago
  Controlling playback allows the industry to insure that new works are industry-sanctioned and appropriately taxed by the incumbents. DRM allows the middle-men to continue being in the middle in the face of the democratization of production and distribution that technology has created.
  - bogomipz 8y ago
    >"Controlling playback allows the industry to insure that new works are industry-sanctioned and appropriately taxed by the incumbents" What industry are you referring to here - the tech sector, the entertainment industry? This is rather vague. Also which tax are you referring to? Who are the "incumbents"?
- pdkl95 8y ago
  > isn't "controlling the playback" a means to control piracy? No, it's about controlling the channels of publication so they can maintain their position as a gatekeeper. > I'm curious is there any evidence of this? See the SCOTUS case at my previous [1]. Universal Studios sued Sony over their new "Betamax" video tape recorders, arguing they were liable under the Lanham Act because their device could record video, which could be copyright infringement. For more recent examples, see the requirements in DVD/BD licensing that force playback of ads and allow disks to disable various features (like fast-forward or track-skip during an ad).
  - wpietri 8y ago
    Sorry, but I'm not seeing the relevance of this to a streaming world. In what fashion do you believe they are controlling playback on Netflix, Amazon Prime, HBO, Starz, or any of the other streaming apps?

by pdkl95 8y ago

bogomipz 8y ago

>"DRM appears to be useless because you are incorrectly assuming DRM's purpose is to stop or reduce piracy. DRM is and always has been about controlling the playback platform." I'm no fan of DRM or the idiots in Hollywood but isn't "controlling the playback" a means to control piracy? Why must they be mutually exclusive? >"Media companies like DRM so the can force anyone making a player to not implement features they don't like." I'm curious is there any evidence of this? How would the Hollywood studios even be aware of all of the new hardware devices?

EvanAnderson 8y ago
Controlling playback allows the industry to insure that new works are industry-sanctioned and appropriately taxed by the incumbents. DRM allows the middle-men to continue being in the middle in the face of the democratization of production and distribution that technology has created.
- bogomipz 8y ago
  >"Controlling playback allows the industry to insure that new works are industry-sanctioned and appropriately taxed by the incumbents" What industry are you referring to here - the tech sector, the entertainment industry? This is rather vague. Also which tax are you referring to? Who are the "incumbents"?
pdkl95 8y ago
> isn't "controlling the playback" a means to control piracy? No, it's about controlling the channels of publication so they can maintain their position as a gatekeeper. > I'm curious is there any evidence of this? See the SCOTUS case at my previous [1]. Universal Studios sued Sony over their new "Betamax" video tape recorders, arguing they were liable under the Lanham Act because their device could record video, which could be copyright infringement. For more recent examples, see the requirements in DVD/BD licensing that force playback of ads and allow disks to disable various features (like fast-forward or track-skip during an ad).
- wpietri 8y ago
  Sorry, but I'm not seeing the relevance of this to a streaming world. In what fashion do you believe they are controlling playback on Netflix, Amazon Prime, HBO, Starz, or any of the other streaming apps?