3 ms·

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

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.

johannes1234321 7y ago
When Apple dropped DRM from their music downloads it was a great day. Suddenly one could download music for a competitive price legally from the internet and use in all the ways. Putting it on my mp3 player or my media server and create a backup, which I can trust to be usable even a few years. If a new audio standard comes by I even can re-encode and keep it. Meanwhile however we have Spotify and are back in the walled garden. Movie industry unfortunately went directly from physical media (with stupid DRM restrictions - my favorite one is that on a "legal" DVD player I am forced to watch a short sequence on how bad pirates are, on my "illegal" DRM free player I can skip that part) to streaming. Making sure I don't "own" a thing and making sure my computer runs software limiting what I can do with my computer.
- judge2020 7y ago
  In the legal sense, buying from iTunes is actually "buying", while you do just rent access (similar to a Gym membership) when you sign up for Apple Music or Spotify. I don't blame them for using DRM for music when the user needs a perpetual license to continue listening to it.
spookthesunset 7y ago
These kinds of reductionist arguments don't hold much water in the real world. Using arguments like this you can justify ransomware--after all ransomware is just CPU instructions running on a computer. That is what computers do is run instructions. Therefore, it is totally okay if the instructions happen to encrypt the entire contents of a disk and prevent the user from accessing it until they pay money. Here in meatspace, we have this notion of ownership and property rights. DRM is a mechanism to protect those rights. They may not be perfect, and they might not always make much business sense but that is their intent.
- johannes1234321 7y ago
  The ransomware doesn't do what I as owner of the computer want and nothing which serves me a purpose. The comparison doesn't work. If you look for a comparison: DRM is like a book publisher printing books on special paper which prevents copying and which can only be read in a specific angle so I can't easily take notes containing quotes from the book. All to protect those rights. (Edit: actually that example is missing a piece - you need special reading glasses to be able to read it, that's what DRM is doing on my machine) And yes - Napster was an issue for the music industry. Suddenly their content was there for free and easily accessible. But then there was Apple, giving music away DRM-free with even better usability and for an acceptable fee.
holy_city 7y ago
Maybe "non-redistributable" instead of "non-copyable." I don't disagree with your assessment, except I'd say DRM doesn't exist to restrict the machine - the goal is to restrict the user. Which is necessary, when users aren't trustworthy. But I'd disagree that DRM doesn't serve you a purpose. It serves the purpose of establishing trust and enforcing conditional exchanges of information. The alternative, like you imply, is no communication, or communication through a different medium that doesn't involve your hardware at all.

johannes1234321 7y ago

When Apple dropped DRM from their music downloads it was a great day. Suddenly one could download music for a competitive price legally from the internet and use in all the ways. Putting it on my mp3 player or my media server and create a backup, which I can trust to be usable even a few years. If a new audio standard comes by I even can re-encode and keep it. Meanwhile however we have Spotify and are back in the walled garden. Movie industry unfortunately went directly from physical media (with stupid DRM restrictions - my favorite one is that on a "legal" DVD player I am forced to watch a short sequence on how bad pirates are, on my "illegal" DRM free player I can skip that part) to streaming. Making sure I don't "own" a thing and making sure my computer runs software limiting what I can do with my computer.

judge2020 7y ago
In the legal sense, buying from iTunes is actually "buying", while you do just rent access (similar to a Gym membership) when you sign up for Apple Music or Spotify. I don't blame them for using DRM for music when the user needs a perpetual license to continue listening to it.

spookthesunset 7y ago

These kinds of reductionist arguments don't hold much water in the real world. Using arguments like this you can justify ransomware--after all ransomware is just CPU instructions running on a computer. That is what computers do is run instructions. Therefore, it is totally okay if the instructions happen to encrypt the entire contents of a disk and prevent the user from accessing it until they pay money. Here in meatspace, we have this notion of ownership and property rights. DRM is a mechanism to protect those rights. They may not be perfect, and they might not always make much business sense but that is their intent.

johannes1234321 7y ago
The ransomware doesn't do what I as owner of the computer want and nothing which serves me a purpose. The comparison doesn't work. If you look for a comparison: DRM is like a book publisher printing books on special paper which prevents copying and which can only be read in a specific angle so I can't easily take notes containing quotes from the book. All to protect those rights. (Edit: actually that example is missing a piece - you need special reading glasses to be able to read it, that's what DRM is doing on my machine) And yes - Napster was an issue for the music industry. Suddenly their content was there for free and easily accessible. But then there was Apple, giving music away DRM-free with even better usability and for an acceptable fee.

holy_city 7y ago

Maybe "non-redistributable" instead of "non-copyable." I don't disagree with your assessment, except I'd say DRM doesn't exist to restrict the machine - the goal is to restrict the user. Which is necessary, when users aren't trustworthy. But I'd disagree that DRM doesn't serve you a purpose. It serves the purpose of establishing trust and enforcing conditional exchanges of information. The alternative, like you imply, is no communication, or communication through a different medium that doesn't involve your hardware at all.