3 ms·

> We in fact tried, and mostly succeeded, in boycotting DRM when it was cumbersome, full of bugs, and annoyed users in the early 2000s. I wonder what the autho

by roca 6y ago

> We in fact tried, and mostly succeeded, in boycotting DRM when it was cumbersome, full of bugs, and annoyed users in the early 2000s. I wonder what the author could possibly be talking about. The only boycott that could be effective is customers saying, en masse, that they will not watch some specific, otherwise-popular content because it is only available via DRM. I don't believe this has ever happened. I don't think even the hardest-core anti-DRM people I've ever known would simply refuse to watch a movie they think they would like on these grounds. For example, Firefox refusing to support DRM would have been completely ineffective because essentially all users, on encountering video they want to watch that requires such DRM, would simply switch to Chrome to view that video.

zerocrates 6y ago
The early 2000s is right on the steep upslope of DVD sales, famously encumbered by DRM. Depending on your definition of "early" it's also the time of iTunes's initial growth, which also had DRM in those days. Video games also merrily rolled along while requiring various DRM schemes in this period. Regardless, the post does realistically allow that no such boycott would be forthcoming now.
- axiolite 6y ago
  > The early 2000s is right on the steep upslope of DVD sales, famously encumbered by DRM. DVDs had weak DRM that was cracked in 1999. It was perhaps less of an encumbrance than the hassle and degredation of analog VHS tape, plus Macrovision. >it's also the time of iTunes's initial growth, which also had DRM in those days. iTMS DRM stood out as less restrictive than all other downloadable options up to that point. Apple's refusal to license their DRM and the popularity of iPods forced the music industry to offer DRM-free downloads. Many CDs had various attempts at DRM at that time as well.
  - zerocrates 6y ago
    Those aren't really arguments in favor of the existence of a boycott, though. iTunes a closer case since they did get rid of it. The disastrous attempts at CD DRM, the Sony rootkit and so on, those are legit though. One of the DMCA's many problems is that it doesn't really matter if the protection is easily broken: the legal jeopardy for doing so remains.
ameliaquining 6y ago
I think this is talking about digital music, where there was intense competition in the 2000s between services that imposed DRM and services that didn't, and in the end the DRM side capitulated. (Of course, then streaming music arrived and was a whole other can of worms.)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- webmaven 6y ago
  > I think this is talking about digital music, where there was intense competition in the 2000s between services that imposed DRM and services that didn't, and in the end the DRM side capitulated. (Of course, then streaming music arrived and was a whole other can of worms.) The apogee on the Music DRM side was in 2005 when Sony released a music CD that actually installed a rootkit on your PC[0]. As it turns out, "Don't buy music from Sony, it will put a virus on your computer" was a pretty effective way to hit Sony's public image and pocketbook. After that, it was no longer hyperbole to describe DRM as malware, and it was apparent that the logical endpoint detractors were pointing to was not, in fact, dismissable as a reductio ad absurdum. It was downhill for DRM from there. In 2008, Microsoft shut down their PlaysForSure servers[1], rendering protected media purchases useless, demonstrating that you couldn't rely on DRM systems to continue to work, even if the DRM vendor was the richest and most entrenched software company in the world. One year after that, iTunes went DRM-free, which was the final nail in the coffin. At least for music DRM. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_roo... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_PlaysForSure https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_PlaysForSure
  - roca 6y ago
    This is a good point. However it just means that once the industry decided to allow some DRM-free distribution of most/all content, a DRM boycott worked. Unfortunately it is still true that where the industry does not allow any DRM-free distribution of most content, no DRM boycott has occurred.

by roca 6y ago

zerocrates 6y ago

The early 2000s is right on the steep upslope of DVD sales, famously encumbered by DRM. Depending on your definition of "early" it's also the time of iTunes's initial growth, which also had DRM in those days. Video games also merrily rolled along while requiring various DRM schemes in this period. Regardless, the post does realistically allow that no such boycott would be forthcoming now.

axiolite 6y ago
> The early 2000s is right on the steep upslope of DVD sales, famously encumbered by DRM. DVDs had weak DRM that was cracked in 1999. It was perhaps less of an encumbrance than the hassle and degredation of analog VHS tape, plus Macrovision. >it's also the time of iTunes's initial growth, which also had DRM in those days. iTMS DRM stood out as less restrictive than all other downloadable options up to that point. Apple's refusal to license their DRM and the popularity of iPods forced the music industry to offer DRM-free downloads. Many CDs had various attempts at DRM at that time as well.
- zerocrates 6y ago
  Those aren't really arguments in favor of the existence of a boycott, though. iTunes a closer case since they did get rid of it. The disastrous attempts at CD DRM, the Sony rootkit and so on, those are legit though. One of the DMCA's many problems is that it doesn't really matter if the protection is easily broken: the legal jeopardy for doing so remains.

ameliaquining 6y ago

I think this is talking about digital music, where there was intense competition in the 2000s between services that imposed DRM and services that didn't, and in the end the DRM side capitulated. (Of course, then streaming music arrived and was a whole other can of worms.)

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
webmaven 6y ago
> I think this is talking about digital music, where there was intense competition in the 2000s between services that imposed DRM and services that didn't, and in the end the DRM side capitulated. (Of course, then streaming music arrived and was a whole other can of worms.) The apogee on the Music DRM side was in 2005 when Sony released a music CD that actually installed a rootkit on your PC[0]. As it turns out, "Don't buy music from Sony, it will put a virus on your computer" was a pretty effective way to hit Sony's public image and pocketbook. After that, it was no longer hyperbole to describe DRM as malware, and it was apparent that the logical endpoint detractors were pointing to was not, in fact, dismissable as a reductio ad absurdum. It was downhill for DRM from there. In 2008, Microsoft shut down their PlaysForSure servers[1], rendering protected media purchases useless, demonstrating that you couldn't rely on DRM systems to continue to work, even if the DRM vendor was the richest and most entrenched software company in the world. One year after that, iTunes went DRM-free, which was the final nail in the coffin. At least for music DRM. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_roo... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_PlaysForSure https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_PlaysForSure
- roca 6y ago
  This is a good point. However it just means that once the industry decided to allow some DRM-free distribution of most/all content, a DRM boycott worked. Unfortunately it is still true that where the industry does not allow any DRM-free distribution of most content, no DRM boycott has occurred.