8 ms·

Picking a random point: DRM is malware. It is extra software with the only purpose to limit what I can do. Of course there is no alternative as long as consume

Picking a random point: DRM is malware. It is extra software with the only purpose to limit what I can do. Of course there is no alternative as long as consumers accept it. And consumers don't care since it all seems to work.

new_realist 7y ago
If DRM allows you to consume content you would not otherwise have access to, it is a feature. What does it limit you from doing, in particular? Running custom software on your device? That’s a funny definition of malware.
- hyperhopper 7y ago
  DRM doesn't allow you to consume content. There is nothing technical about DRM that helps deliver content to me. I think you may be referring to businesses making an anti-user decision to withhold content, and mistaking exceptions to that to be things useful to a user.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    I don't see how it's an anti-user decision. Whether it's bits over the network or physical stuff, why should they have to send me their product if they don't want to?
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      DRM isn't about them not sending the product - it's about them sending the product and then hijacking the computer I own to prevent me from using the product the way I like. DRM schemes are anti-user decisions in the sense that users are presented with a choice of either allowing companies to hijack their machines to enforce a subpar experience, or walking away.
      - spookthesunset 7y ago
        The product is the media content. Our society and legal framework says you don't own that content. You might own your device, but you don't own that bit of data stored on it. Said data owner requires you to consume the data in certain ways. How do you reconcile the two conflicting requirements? One way is to invent crazy DRM schemes. Of course, I'd argue most DRM pushes normal people to piracy because the restrictions usually suck. Had they just distributed the content in a more unrestricted way, they'd do more business. But that is a business problem, not a technical one.
        TeMPOraL 7y ago
        > How do you reconcile the two conflicting requirements? One way is to invent crazy DRM schemes. Another way is to not do it. The law does not require you to implement crazy DRM schemes, it requires me to not distribute copyrighted work to which I don't own the copyright. The law doesn't force companies to implement DRM. It's a choice, and as a choice, it can be considered malicious action by customers. Grocery stores doesn't hire large amount of security people so that every customer would have a security person assigned to them that follows them around and ensures they don't steal anything. They could do it, I don't think any law anywhere prevents them from doing that. But the first one to try it would quickly lose all its customers. If such a practice happened to get ultimately established (e.g. normalized by stores in non-commodity position), I suspect the meatspace equivalent of FSF would be ranting about it too.
  - ahupp 7y ago
    Payments are also not something technical that helps deliver content to you, yet without them you'd have no content to consume. Same with DRM.
- musicale 7y ago
  > What does it (DRM) limit you from doing, in particular? How about: - Using the fast forward function in media playback software to skip over advertisements. - Ripping DVD and Blu-Ray movies for use with a media server. - Playing movies and games from other countries (region locking.) - Recording or streaming console gameplay (e.g. HDCP on PS3, disabling the share function in certain PS4 games.) - Running certain software, even some single-player games, if you are not connected to the internet ("always-on DRM.")
  - spookthesunset 7y ago
    Don't use that content if you don't like the restrictions it imposes on you. DRM sucks, but you don't have to use it.
    - monster99 7y ago
      Except you really don't have a choice, the internet allows companies to hold programs hostage and you have no market power. The modern internet is one giant computer which companies unofficially own or control. By coding software in a fraudulent way where they take advantage of mass computer illiteracy from their end. That's how DOTA 2, league of legends, SMITE, paladins, fortnite, exist... they can only exist in a society where mass internet penetration is sufficiently large, or else they would have just been regular PC multiplayer games coded like Quake 3 or UT2004. You don't get the agenda, the last 20 years has been the greatest theft of PC games in history. When valve dropped steam in 2004 - the patch to take control of half-life, it was an act of fraud and theft because his customers couldn't reach him. Valve is the biggest theif in all of history. The internet changes the dynamics of power between companies and customers because they can simply hold files and programs hostage on their computers and call it a service. AKA google play is pure criminal enterprise, games you never own and who's programs run on your device but who's executables are wrapped in encryption and critical parts of the code run on googles servers, even though they are asking for money from the public. The whole model exists based of mass computer illiteracy. These "Software as a service" models are irrational because the whole agenda for corporations is to deny local apps to the user for monopoly profits. They get away with it because their tech informed customers are trapped 100 miles away, so they can simpyl force policies. Free market theory is over, the power assemetry between creator of software and buyer is overwhelmingly now in the producers favor. Nowhere is this seen more clearly then diablo 2 vs diablo 3 or starcraft 1 vs starcraft 2. Where the game is the same but they hold the program hostage on a computer in their office to deny application control to the people buying the software. It's just fraud by any other means. There's no reason for any game, application, or os to be split between my computer and the companies. It's fraud on a massive scale, they are literally enslaving peoples computers because writing software means you are a governing power in an internet enabled society. Most people are not technology literate so you get a disaster in terms of privacy.
ssully 7y ago
I also have my gripes with DRM, but what you defined is 100% not malware, and also an insincere definition of DRM.
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  > also an insincere definition of DRM I have no idea what you mean by that. I really need you to elaborate, because it sounds like a perfect description of DRM. It's there to stop you from playing/copying files, and nothing else.
  - lazyasciiart 7y ago
    The purpose is to extend what I as the producer of the files can do, giving me the ability to send you a file and still control your usage.
    - AndunD 7y ago
      I have a DRM'd artificial heart to sell you. I feel so free!
    - ggg3 7y ago
      except it doesn't. as a producer, you are led to believe that you will make more profit by using DRM. but by the time you dilute all your returns with the restricted distribution channels, same loss due to piracy (because, surprise, drm doesn't prevents it) and no forced sales increase because people who would buy with drm would buy without it anyway, you realize your profits are now lower than not using DRM. But there is no metric you can easily check, because all distribution channels sell you on DRM, because the distribution channel do make more with it. (the only paper I've ever read exploring this hypothesis had to use borderline porn content metrics) unless I misread your comment and your desired usage control is antagonistic to your own profit.
    - nybble41 7y ago
      > ...giving me the ability to send you a file and still control your usage. This is exactly why DRM is malware. It's not your device. You don't get to say what it may or may not do. That's for the device's owner to decide. malware: Software that is specifically designed to disrupt, damage, or gain unauthorized access to a computer system. <https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/malware> https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/malware> Your explicit intention is to disrupt the operation of the computer running the DRM software. This disruption is not authorized by the owner of the device. Ergo: malware.
holy_city 7y ago
Say you want to send data to an untrusted destination and want the data to be read-only and non-copyable. DRM is the solution. That's not malware, it's part of the threat/loss prevention model for certain kinds of data. There are plenty of issues with DRM from a practical and philosophical level. But I think calling it malware is disingenuous. Alice doesn't cede her rights over her data by transmitting it to Bob, and DRM is how Alice protects the data when Bob is a malicious actor. If Bob wants to gain more privileges over all his data, he doesn't need to accept communication from Alice. That said, buggy DRM can be atrocious and cost more money than it saves. I know plenty of folks who pirate software they own because it's easier than an legal install. But that's a UX problem, not a DRM problem.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  > Say you want to send data to an untrusted destination and want the data to be read-only and non-copyable. Barring quantum technology, I don't think this is possible.
  - ben_w 7y ago
    Even with quantum technology, there is such a thing as a “good enough” copy — my phone can record 4k/60fps, and while it would be a bit fiddly to set it up right to copy a video by filming a display, it can be done.
- johannes1234321 7y ago
  By sending it me you have to copy it, either onto a medium or network, I then have to copy it (from some medium/network at least into main memory and then copy either into video or audio memory which then do magic to highlight pixels or create audio waves) The copy is essence of what a computer does. A computer can essentially only do some math and copying. If you ask me to install some DRM software (or maybe even some hardware containing DRM stuff as in HDMI) you are asking me to run additional complex software where the only purpose is to restrict the functionality of my computer. I do that, since I like some movies and other things I get this way. However the software serves no purpose to me as the user. It is there to do Digital Restriction Management.
Drew_ 7y ago
TIL authorization is malware apparently.
- johannes1234321 7y ago
  Software running on my computer, not letting me things do I want to do is malware. Yes.
  - spookthesunset 7y ago
    You own your computer, yes. But you don't always own the data on it. Ownership of something is a legal and social construct, not a technical one. PS: I think most DRM works against the businesses that attempt to implement it. But it isn't malware. It is a data protection layer.
    - ggg3 7y ago
      lol. it's all "data protection layer" until sony ships an actual rootkit.
    - monster99 7y ago
      DRM most certainly is. BEfore the internet there was no "DRM" in the modern sense, copyright protection back then did not lead to incomplete software. Modern DRM is literally taking control of other peoples machins remotely by holding back part of the program on computers in corporate offices. It's literally fraud.
kube-system 7y ago
Given that 'malware' is short for 'malicious software', one might make a semantic argument that DRM is actually anti-malware, as it prevents other software from operating maliciously. Copyright infringement is undoubtedly a malicious act under the law in most places. Any kind of security, authentication, or encryption software ever written was done so to "limit what you can do", so I don't think that is enough to constitute maliciousness. That being said, many DRM software implementations have been known to go beyond just protecting the rights of the content creators, and that's a different story.
- nybble41 7y ago
  > Copyright infringement is undoubtedly a malicious act... You're seriously trying to argue that people who commit copyright infringement do so maliciously, i.e. with the intent of harming the copyright holder? That seems... novel. And not very plausible. If true, however, it would be much more effective to ignore the work altogether, thus denying the copyright holder both direct income and free publicity. > Any kind of security, authentication, or encryption software ever written was done so to "limit what you can do", so I don't think that is enough to constitute maliciousness. The point of security, authentication, and encryption software is to protect the interests of the owner of the device. Defending yourself from malicious attacks by others is not an act of malice. DRM is malicious because it perverts the owner's computing resources to thwart the owner's interests and subverts their control over their own device.
  - spookthesunset 7y ago
    > subverts their control over their own device The owner owns their device, yes but they don't always own the data on the device. DRM, for all its faults, is an attempt to reconcile to reconcile the two conflicting requirements.
    - nybble41 7y ago
      The idea of "owning" data is incoherent, which readily explains the issues with DRM. It is an attempt to apply rules suited only for scarce property to non-scarce information. Owning a resource means that you get to decide how the resource is consumed, i.e. used up. This is exclusive only to the extent that scarce resources cannot be put to two conflicting uses simultaneously, so active use by anyone else would prevent the owner from consuming the resource as they choose. Data, however, is not scarce; it can never be used up. There is no possible conflict between the "owner" and any other user, which makes the claim of ownership meaningless. No matter what anyone else might do with the data, the "owner" still has it and can use it however they wish.

new_realist 7y ago

If DRM allows you to consume content you would not otherwise have access to, it is a feature. What does it limit you from doing, in particular? Running custom software on your device? That’s a funny definition of malware.

hyperhopper 7y ago
DRM doesn't allow you to consume content. There is nothing technical about DRM that helps deliver content to me. I think you may be referring to businesses making an anti-user decision to withhold content, and mistaking exceptions to that to be things useful to a user.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  I don't see how it's an anti-user decision. Whether it's bits over the network or physical stuff, why should they have to send me their product if they don't want to?
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    DRM isn't about them not sending the product - it's about them sending the product and then hijacking the computer I own to prevent me from using the product the way I like. DRM schemes are anti-user decisions in the sense that users are presented with a choice of either allowing companies to hijack their machines to enforce a subpar experience, or walking away.
    - spookthesunset 7y ago
      The product is the media content. Our society and legal framework says you don't own that content. You might own your device, but you don't own that bit of data stored on it. Said data owner requires you to consume the data in certain ways. How do you reconcile the two conflicting requirements? One way is to invent crazy DRM schemes. Of course, I'd argue most DRM pushes normal people to piracy because the restrictions usually suck. Had they just distributed the content in a more unrestricted way, they'd do more business. But that is a business problem, not a technical one.
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        > How do you reconcile the two conflicting requirements? One way is to invent crazy DRM schemes. Another way is to not do it. The law does not require you to implement crazy DRM schemes, it requires me to not distribute copyrighted work to which I don't own the copyright. The law doesn't force companies to implement DRM. It's a choice, and as a choice, it can be considered malicious action by customers. Grocery stores doesn't hire large amount of security people so that every customer would have a security person assigned to them that follows them around and ensures they don't steal anything. They could do it, I don't think any law anywhere prevents them from doing that. But the first one to try it would quickly lose all its customers. If such a practice happened to get ultimately established (e.g. normalized by stores in non-commodity position), I suspect the meatspace equivalent of FSF would be ranting about it too.
- ahupp 7y ago
  Payments are also not something technical that helps deliver content to you, yet without them you'd have no content to consume. Same with DRM.
musicale 7y ago
> What does it (DRM) limit you from doing, in particular? How about: - Using the fast forward function in media playback software to skip over advertisements. - Ripping DVD and Blu-Ray movies for use with a media server. - Playing movies and games from other countries (region locking.) - Recording or streaming console gameplay (e.g. HDCP on PS3, disabling the share function in certain PS4 games.) - Running certain software, even some single-player games, if you are not connected to the internet ("always-on DRM.")
- spookthesunset 7y ago
  Don't use that content if you don't like the restrictions it imposes on you. DRM sucks, but you don't have to use it.
  - monster99 7y ago
    Except you really don't have a choice, the internet allows companies to hold programs hostage and you have no market power. The modern internet is one giant computer which companies unofficially own or control. By coding software in a fraudulent way where they take advantage of mass computer illiteracy from their end. That's how DOTA 2, league of legends, SMITE, paladins, fortnite, exist... they can only exist in a society where mass internet penetration is sufficiently large, or else they would have just been regular PC multiplayer games coded like Quake 3 or UT2004. You don't get the agenda, the last 20 years has been the greatest theft of PC games in history. When valve dropped steam in 2004 - the patch to take control of half-life, it was an act of fraud and theft because his customers couldn't reach him. Valve is the biggest theif in all of history. The internet changes the dynamics of power between companies and customers because they can simply hold files and programs hostage on their computers and call it a service. AKA google play is pure criminal enterprise, games you never own and who's programs run on your device but who's executables are wrapped in encryption and critical parts of the code run on googles servers, even though they are asking for money from the public. The whole model exists based of mass computer illiteracy. These "Software as a service" models are irrational because the whole agenda for corporations is to deny local apps to the user for monopoly profits. They get away with it because their tech informed customers are trapped 100 miles away, so they can simpyl force policies. Free market theory is over, the power assemetry between creator of software and buyer is overwhelmingly now in the producers favor. Nowhere is this seen more clearly then diablo 2 vs diablo 3 or starcraft 1 vs starcraft 2. Where the game is the same but they hold the program hostage on a computer in their office to deny application control to the people buying the software. It's just fraud by any other means. There's no reason for any game, application, or os to be split between my computer and the companies. It's fraud on a massive scale, they are literally enslaving peoples computers because writing software means you are a governing power in an internet enabled society. Most people are not technology literate so you get a disaster in terms of privacy.

ssully 7y ago

I also have my gripes with DRM, but what you defined is 100% not malware, and also an insincere definition of DRM.

Dylan16807 7y ago
> also an insincere definition of DRM I have no idea what you mean by that. I really need you to elaborate, because it sounds like a perfect description of DRM. It's there to stop you from playing/copying files, and nothing else.
- lazyasciiart 7y ago
  The purpose is to extend what I as the producer of the files can do, giving me the ability to send you a file and still control your usage.
  - AndunD 7y ago
    I have a DRM'd artificial heart to sell you. I feel so free!
  - ggg3 7y ago
    except it doesn't. as a producer, you are led to believe that you will make more profit by using DRM. but by the time you dilute all your returns with the restricted distribution channels, same loss due to piracy (because, surprise, drm doesn't prevents it) and no forced sales increase because people who would buy with drm would buy without it anyway, you realize your profits are now lower than not using DRM. But there is no metric you can easily check, because all distribution channels sell you on DRM, because the distribution channel do make more with it. (the only paper I've ever read exploring this hypothesis had to use borderline porn content metrics) unless I misread your comment and your desired usage control is antagonistic to your own profit.
  - nybble41 7y ago
    > ...giving me the ability to send you a file and still control your usage. This is exactly why DRM is malware. It's not your device. You don't get to say what it may or may not do. That's for the device's owner to decide. malware: Software that is specifically designed to disrupt, damage, or gain unauthorized access to a computer system. <https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/malware> https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/malware> Your explicit intention is to disrupt the operation of the computer running the DRM software. This disruption is not authorized by the owner of the device. Ergo: malware.

holy_city 7y ago

Say you want to send data to an untrusted destination and want the data to be read-only and non-copyable. DRM is the solution. That's not malware, it's part of the threat/loss prevention model for certain kinds of data. There are plenty of issues with DRM from a practical and philosophical level. But I think calling it malware is disingenuous. Alice doesn't cede her rights over her data by transmitting it to Bob, and DRM is how Alice protects the data when Bob is a malicious actor. If Bob wants to gain more privileges over all his data, he doesn't need to accept communication from Alice. That said, buggy DRM can be atrocious and cost more money than it saves. I know plenty of folks who pirate software they own because it's easier than an legal install. But that's a UX problem, not a DRM problem.

saagarjha 7y ago
> Say you want to send data to an untrusted destination and want the data to be read-only and non-copyable. Barring quantum technology, I don't think this is possible.
- ben_w 7y ago
  Even with quantum technology, there is such a thing as a “good enough” copy — my phone can record 4k/60fps, and while it would be a bit fiddly to set it up right to copy a video by filming a display, it can be done.
johannes1234321 7y ago
By sending it me you have to copy it, either onto a medium or network, I then have to copy it (from some medium/network at least into main memory and then copy either into video or audio memory which then do magic to highlight pixels or create audio waves) The copy is essence of what a computer does. A computer can essentially only do some math and copying. If you ask me to install some DRM software (or maybe even some hardware containing DRM stuff as in HDMI) you are asking me to run additional complex software where the only purpose is to restrict the functionality of my computer. I do that, since I like some movies and other things I get this way. However the software serves no purpose to me as the user. It is there to do Digital Restriction Management.

Drew_ 7y ago

TIL authorization is malware apparently.

johannes1234321 7y ago
Software running on my computer, not letting me things do I want to do is malware. Yes.
- spookthesunset 7y ago
  You own your computer, yes. But you don't always own the data on it. Ownership of something is a legal and social construct, not a technical one. PS: I think most DRM works against the businesses that attempt to implement it. But it isn't malware. It is a data protection layer.
  - ggg3 7y ago
    lol. it's all "data protection layer" until sony ships an actual rootkit.
  - monster99 7y ago
    DRM most certainly is. BEfore the internet there was no "DRM" in the modern sense, copyright protection back then did not lead to incomplete software. Modern DRM is literally taking control of other peoples machins remotely by holding back part of the program on computers in corporate offices. It's literally fraud.

kube-system 7y ago

Given that 'malware' is short for 'malicious software', one might make a semantic argument that DRM is actually anti-malware, as it prevents other software from operating maliciously. Copyright infringement is undoubtedly a malicious act under the law in most places. Any kind of security, authentication, or encryption software ever written was done so to "limit what you can do", so I don't think that is enough to constitute maliciousness. That being said, many DRM software implementations have been known to go beyond just protecting the rights of the content creators, and that's a different story.

nybble41 7y ago
> Copyright infringement is undoubtedly a malicious act... You're seriously trying to argue that people who commit copyright infringement do so maliciously, i.e. with the intent of harming the copyright holder? That seems... novel. And not very plausible. If true, however, it would be much more effective to ignore the work altogether, thus denying the copyright holder both direct income and free publicity. > Any kind of security, authentication, or encryption software ever written was done so to "limit what you can do", so I don't think that is enough to constitute maliciousness. The point of security, authentication, and encryption software is to protect the interests of the owner of the device. Defending yourself from malicious attacks by others is not an act of malice. DRM is malicious because it perverts the owner's computing resources to thwart the owner's interests and subverts their control over their own device.
- spookthesunset 7y ago
  > subverts their control over their own device The owner owns their device, yes but they don't always own the data on the device. DRM, for all its faults, is an attempt to reconcile to reconcile the two conflicting requirements.
  - nybble41 7y ago
    The idea of "owning" data is incoherent, which readily explains the issues with DRM. It is an attempt to apply rules suited only for scarce property to non-scarce information. Owning a resource means that you get to decide how the resource is consumed, i.e. used up. This is exclusive only to the extent that scarce resources cannot be put to two conflicting uses simultaneously, so active use by anyone else would prevent the owner from consuming the resource as they choose. Data, however, is not scarce; it can never be used up. There is no possible conflict between the "owner" and any other user, which makes the claim of ownership meaningless. No matter what anyone else might do with the data, the "owner" still has it and can use it however they wish.