3 ms·

Which customers? I'm one, and I didn't even know it had DRM, much less feel insulted.

shmerl 6y ago
All customers. DRM treats those who buy their games as apriory potential criminals (that's the premise of DRM by its very definition as a preemptive policing). I find it insulting. The general premise and intent of DRM was described well here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk... Those who don't find such kind of approach insulting can probably accept other methodologies of overreaching preemptive policing too.
- recursive 6y ago
  Are you insulted by online services that require you to enter a password? I'm not. Anyway, if you're insulted by a game, don't play it.
  - shmerl 6y ago
    I think you are mixing up authentication with DRM. Authentication is a normal concept, for example for buying something you need to show that you are you, to associate your payment with your purchase. DRM is restricting your usage after you already bought it by deploying some kind of malware in your system. It's overreaching preemptive policing.
    - recursive 6y ago
      Define "malware". Authentication also applies for services you've paid for, even after you've paid for them. And none of this has anything to do with police.
      - shmerl 6y ago
        Something that's aimed against the user, hostile, malicious code (mal in malware). Since it treats you as an apriory threat, you should treat it as an apriory threat in return, so as a malware.
        recursive 6y ago
        I can see the argument. It doesn't seem like any more difficult to argue that user authentication is also user-hostile, regardless of whose machine its running on. It's "a priori" btw.
        shmerl 6y ago
        Overreaching part is deploying some anti-user tools that enforce restrictions in your private digital space after you already paid for the product. Authentication for the purchase itself is fine, it's not any different than you showing your face in a store when you pay, so the seller gives the product to you because it's you paying. I.e. it would be wrong for the seller to give it to someone else instead (unless you ask). That's what authentication is for. But the seller from the store doesn't send an enforcer along, to make sure you are you even after you already left or to make sure you don't do something else with the product. And it would be even more weird, if that enforcer will accompany you home and will enforce whatever in your private space. And that's exactly what DRM is doing.
        recursive 6y ago
        The farther you take these analogies with physical goods, the more stretched and strained they get. For example, there's not a lot of intellectual property restrictions on a roll of toilet paper. That's because almost all of the value of a roll of toilet paper is in the actual production of the physical thing. On the other hand, software is essentially free (as in beer) to copy once it exists. So it makes sense that toilet paper doesn't have enforcers. You say that authentication is ok because it's for the purpose of ensuring you paid. But that's also the purpose of DRM, which you say is not ok. So there must be more to the reason. Personally, I don't think DRM is morally wrong in general. If there DRM I object to on a product, I won't buy that product.
- resu_nimda 6y ago
  Are you insulted by any business that has video cameras? Metal detectors? Security personnel? Are there any measures of protecting one's business from theft that you find acceptable? To be honest I'm not a huge fan of DRM either but I don't believe it's automatically insulting for people to want to protect themselves from very real threats, even if there are some negative effects for the good samaritans. That's just the nature of the world we live in.
  - shmerl 6y ago
    > Are you insulted by any business that has video cameras? I'd surely be, if that business would have any business putting said cameras in my home, like DRM is deployed to police users on their computers and OS they are using - i.e. their private digital space. That's the overreaching part in DRM being an overreaching preemptive policing. People get the concept of overstepping physical privacy for preemptive policing being unacceptable, so it's the same idea for the digital one.
    - recursive 6y ago
      DRM has nothing to with policing. If the DRM kicks in, the product might stop working. If you get "policed", you might end up in jail by force.
      - shmerl 6y ago
        Policing doesn't need to imply jail, it can mean any policy enforcement, such as: the enforcement of regulations or an agreement. DRM is without a question a policing method, one that's preemptive and overreaching by its definition.

All customers. DRM treats those who buy their games as apriory potential criminals (that's the premise of DRM by its very definition as a preemptive policing). I find it insulting. The general premise and intent of DRM was described well here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk... Those who don't find such kind of approach insulting can probably accept other methodologies of overreaching preemptive policing too.

recursive 6y ago
Are you insulted by online services that require you to enter a password? I'm not. Anyway, if you're insulted by a game, don't play it.
- shmerl 6y ago
  I think you are mixing up authentication with DRM. Authentication is a normal concept, for example for buying something you need to show that you are you, to associate your payment with your purchase. DRM is restricting your usage after you already bought it by deploying some kind of malware in your system. It's overreaching preemptive policing.
  - recursive 6y ago
    Define "malware". Authentication also applies for services you've paid for, even after you've paid for them. And none of this has anything to do with police.
    - shmerl 6y ago
      Something that's aimed against the user, hostile, malicious code (mal in malware). Since it treats you as an apriory threat, you should treat it as an apriory threat in return, so as a malware.
      - recursive 6y ago
        I can see the argument. It doesn't seem like any more difficult to argue that user authentication is also user-hostile, regardless of whose machine its running on. It's "a priori" btw.
        shmerl 6y ago
        Overreaching part is deploying some anti-user tools that enforce restrictions in your private digital space after you already paid for the product. Authentication for the purchase itself is fine, it's not any different than you showing your face in a store when you pay, so the seller gives the product to you because it's you paying. I.e. it would be wrong for the seller to give it to someone else instead (unless you ask). That's what authentication is for. But the seller from the store doesn't send an enforcer along, to make sure you are you even after you already left or to make sure you don't do something else with the product. And it would be even more weird, if that enforcer will accompany you home and will enforce whatever in your private space. And that's exactly what DRM is doing.
        recursive 6y ago
        The farther you take these analogies with physical goods, the more stretched and strained they get. For example, there's not a lot of intellectual property restrictions on a roll of toilet paper. That's because almost all of the value of a roll of toilet paper is in the actual production of the physical thing. On the other hand, software is essentially free (as in beer) to copy once it exists. So it makes sense that toilet paper doesn't have enforcers. You say that authentication is ok because it's for the purpose of ensuring you paid. But that's also the purpose of DRM, which you say is not ok. So there must be more to the reason. Personally, I don't think DRM is morally wrong in general. If there DRM I object to on a product, I won't buy that product.
resu_nimda 6y ago
Are you insulted by any business that has video cameras? Metal detectors? Security personnel? Are there any measures of protecting one's business from theft that you find acceptable? To be honest I'm not a huge fan of DRM either but I don't believe it's automatically insulting for people to want to protect themselves from very real threats, even if there are some negative effects for the good samaritans. That's just the nature of the world we live in.
- shmerl 6y ago
  > Are you insulted by any business that has video cameras? I'd surely be, if that business would have any business putting said cameras in my home, like DRM is deployed to police users on their computers and OS they are using - i.e. their private digital space. That's the overreaching part in DRM being an overreaching preemptive policing. People get the concept of overstepping physical privacy for preemptive policing being unacceptable, so it's the same idea for the digital one.
  - recursive 6y ago
    DRM has nothing to with policing. If the DRM kicks in, the product might stop working. If you get "policed", you might end up in jail by force.
    - shmerl 6y ago
      Policing doesn't need to imply jail, it can mean any policy enforcement, such as: the enforcement of regulations or an agreement. DRM is without a question a policing method, one that's preemptive and overreaching by its definition.