5 ms·

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

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.

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.