4 ms·

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

by ssully 7y ago

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.
    - lazyasciiart 7y ago
      Without DRM, I won't send you the file. If I don't send you the file, you can't play it at all. So DRM has increased what you can do.
      - nybble41 7y ago
        > Without DRM, I won't send you the file. If you're going to claim control over my computer in the process, I would prefer that you not send me the file. If the price is accepting DRM then it would be better for everyone if the file never existed.
        lazyasciiart 7y ago
        I can still not send you the file if I have DRM. Now you are keeping control of your computer by not using any files with DRM, and arguing that nobody else should be given those options.
        Dylan16807 7y ago
        There are lots of freedoms you can't contract away. It's not particularly odd to view DRM with that same lens. And as a practical matter, while many services require DRM when it's easy to do so, in a world without DRM almost none would shut down.
        nybble41 7y ago
        Look, if you want to keep the file to yourself unless I agree to run your DRM code on my PC, that's your choice (and mine). Just like rootkits are generally considered malware but it's not an issue if the owner of the PC chooses to install one. However, to be clear, the price is not just me accepting DRM in order to get the file from you but rather everyone being saddled with owner-hostile (and generally non-removable) code shipped with their computers by default and a legal system which grants special privileges and protections to purveyors of DRM, without which the technical measures would be far less effective. I'm not complaining that you won't give me the file unless I run your DRM code. I'm complaining that your insistence on DRM is creating negative externalities for me and others even if we don't want the file.
  - ssully 7y ago
    This is what I could call are a sincere definition. I understand why someone could view this as limiting, but saying DRM is malware and it's only purpose is to limit you is intentionally ignoring other information about DRM to make it sound even worse then it is.
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    Extends what you can do, by letting you control (limit) my usage. So instead of "It is extra software with the only purpose to limit what I can do." we have "It is extra software with the only purpose to limit what I can do, on the bidding of someone else." That's basically the same definition. The "someone else" part was already implied by the first half, obviously some party wants it or there would be no conflict. So we've reached a clearer and more explicit definition, but we've also shown that the original definition is not insincere at all!

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

by 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.

> 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.
  - lazyasciiart 7y ago
    Without DRM, I won't send you the file. If I don't send you the file, you can't play it at all. So DRM has increased what you can do.
    - nybble41 7y ago
      > Without DRM, I won't send you the file. If you're going to claim control over my computer in the process, I would prefer that you not send me the file. If the price is accepting DRM then it would be better for everyone if the file never existed.
      - lazyasciiart 7y ago
        I can still not send you the file if I have DRM. Now you are keeping control of your computer by not using any files with DRM, and arguing that nobody else should be given those options.
        Dylan16807 7y ago
        There are lots of freedoms you can't contract away. It's not particularly odd to view DRM with that same lens. And as a practical matter, while many services require DRM when it's easy to do so, in a world without DRM almost none would shut down.
        nybble41 7y ago
        Look, if you want to keep the file to yourself unless I agree to run your DRM code on my PC, that's your choice (and mine). Just like rootkits are generally considered malware but it's not an issue if the owner of the PC chooses to install one. However, to be clear, the price is not just me accepting DRM in order to get the file from you but rather everyone being saddled with owner-hostile (and generally non-removable) code shipped with their computers by default and a legal system which grants special privileges and protections to purveyors of DRM, without which the technical measures would be far less effective. I'm not complaining that you won't give me the file unless I run your DRM code. I'm complaining that your insistence on DRM is creating negative externalities for me and others even if we don't want the file.
- ssully 7y ago
  This is what I could call are a sincere definition. I understand why someone could view this as limiting, but saying DRM is malware and it's only purpose is to limit you is intentionally ignoring other information about DRM to make it sound even worse then it is.
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  Extends what you can do, by letting you control (limit) my usage. So instead of "It is extra software with the only purpose to limit what I can do." we have "It is extra software with the only purpose to limit what I can do, on the bidding of someone else." That's basically the same definition. The "someone else" part was already implied by the first half, obviously some party wants it or there would be no conflict. So we've reached a clearer and more explicit definition, but we've also shown that the original definition is not insincere at all!