33 ms·

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 mak

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.

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.