4 ms·

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

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.
  - webmaven 6y ago
    I'd argue that the difference was that in music there were enough DRM-free options from many artists that the industry couldn't disallow them. It's a lot easier (though not actually easy) to be a non-label independent musician than it is to be an independent filmmaker. There were some respectable efforts like the show Pioneer One, but there weren't ever enough high production value projects to make a dent in viewership.

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.
- webmaven 6y ago
  I'd argue that the difference was that in music there were enough DRM-free options from many artists that the industry couldn't disallow them. It's a lot easier (though not actually easy) to be a non-label independent musician than it is to be an independent filmmaker. There were some respectable efforts like the show Pioneer One, but there weren't ever enough high production value projects to make a dent in viewership.