6 ms·

The Campaign to Eliminate DRM

85 points by zoowar 15y ago

citricsquid 15y ago
> The campaign aims to make all manufacturers wary about bringing their DRM-enabled products to market. DRM products have features built-in that restrict what jobs they can do. These products have been intentionally crippled from the users' perspective, and are therefore "defective by design" oh come on, that's just silly. That isn't at all what DRM does, it can be a side effect of bad DRM but good DRM doesn't "intentionally cripple" products. Why would anyone support a campaign that starts off by spreading such silly claims.
- slowpoke 15y ago
  There is no good DRM. Claiming otherwise is simply regurgitating the same bullshit that companies such as Ubisoft, EA and Valve spout at every given opportunity. DRM, in all of its forms, limits what you can do with the product you paid for. That is - and always will be - intentional crippling and therefore defective by design. There is no justification for these limitations besides escapist claims of "protecting intellectual property" or similar nonsense. It's simply companies trying to control (and lock in) their customers. I might add that I used to be a big fan of Nintendo for their awesome franchises. Mario, Link and all the others basically make up a good part of my childhood. To me, it's just sad to see them going down the same path as all the other publishers.
  - dangrossman 15y ago
    What's the DRM in Netflix streaming restricting that you should be able to do with that stream?
    - slowpoke 15y ago
      You confuse the medium with the means of distributing said medium. The stream (distribution) is the DRM preventing me from doing what I want with the movie (medium). In other words, the stream itself is the DRM, not the thing that is restricted.
      - dangrossman 15y ago
        I disagree. What Netflix "Watch It Now" promises for your $8/month is the ability to stream a movie to a supported device. The stream is the product and the delivery method. DRM makes it practical, yet I don't think DRM restricts you from doing anything you should be able to do with that stream. The original question stands.
    - jrockway 15y ago
      Uh, watch the video on my Linux box?
  - citricsquid 15y ago
    Steam is DRM, but it adds so much value. I prefer to use Steam (with the DRM) than I do to use a game that doesn't have any DRM because of how much Steam improves the process of purchasing, installing, downloading and updating games. DRM done right (eg: Steam) can be awesome.
    - devicenull 15y ago
      It's gotten to the point where I'll only buy game on Steam, because I know the experience will be 100x better then any of it's competitors. (GFWL for example, is the worst piece of software I've ever used)
    - slowpoke 15y ago
      That's just obfuscating what DRM really is. Sure, it's cool and convenient to use Steam, but it's still DRM. Gold-coated feces, if you'd prefer an analogy. Just for example, you don't actually own the game, and you can't do with it whatever you want. tl;dr: Convenience is not a justification for restrictions.
      - ugh 15y ago
        That’s an odd position, isn’t it? I have no problem believing that what you are saying is your opinion but I see no reason why everyone should be of the same opinion. Why can’t I be perfectly fine with not owning the game and not being able to do with it whatever I want in exchange for the convenience of Steam? What’s wrong with that? I can understand that you believe that those terms are not acceptable but why do you want to force me to believe the same? Even after understanding perfectly what Steam’s terms entail I still think that buying games there is a good idea. What now?
        bad_user 15y ago
        I don't think people are complaining that games should be free of charge. People are complaining that all of a sudden, the copyright law itself is not enough. DRM is broken by design because (a) there is no DRM system that hasn't been cracked yet and (b) it punishes honest customers. Not only that, but many DRM systems require online servers to be active. You don't own the copy you purchased anymore and as soon as that verification server gets shut-down, then your local copy won't work anymore; unless you knowingly break the DMCA to workaround the DRM restrictions (which is always illegal, even if you own the copyright of said content / being the freaking author). For me, it is far more convenient to just start downloading a torrent from the dozens of trackers I have access to, than pay up for DRMed content and get punished. That I pay for the apps or other content I use, that's just because the authors deserve getting rewarded and usually it's not their fault that the distribution medium is using DRM; but when it is, that feels like a dick-move to me and I feel no remorse turning to piracy or not using the product at all.
- naner 15y ago
  good DRM doesn't "intentionally cripple" products. Why would anyone support a campaign that starts off by spreading such silly claims. That is the simple purpose of DRM. A digital file can be copied easily. DRM or any type of copy-protection introduces complexity to reduce this basic functionality. Reduced functionality makes a product less useful to the user. You could also say that lower cost versions of Windows 7 are crippled from the user's perspective. Parts of the OS are disabled so Microsoft can sell multiple editions at different price points. Functionality that exists is purposely reduced (crippled). To use your example of Steam: it still disallows certain types of copying. It provides additional functionality, but Steam without DRM would be more useful to the end user. I could create my own offline back up copies and share copies with people not on Steam, etc. Obviously, this might be considered bad behavior for economic/ethical reasons but the functionality provided to the user is strictly reduced by the DRM. That is the point. Steam isn't useful because of DRM, Steam is useful in spite of DRM.
mlinksva 15y ago
Unclear why the DBD home page on HN, now (a USian independence day tie-in?), but I guess it is clear why it is on the front page. I voted it up, and presumably lots of people will likewise reflexively vote up an anti-DRM link. Anyway, how goes the campaign to eliminate DRM? DRM hasn't worked to suppress unauthorized distribution (which of course was a fantasy) and isn't ubiquitous ... except where it is, e.g., Netflix and many consumer devices. As far as I can tell, the campaign is at best at a standstill. Consumer outcry even when directly harmed (e.g., useless purchases when DRM service shut down) is at best tepid. More speculatively, my default view is that DRM is a misfeature of proprietary software and culture, and will only be eliminated to the extent free software and culture win. My default view is probably short-sighted. What will be the role of DRM in attempting to control devices that have little to do with content, e.g., automated vehicles?
- bluedanieru 15y ago
  USian That is so stupid.
walexander 15y ago
>Holding Nintendo Accountable >volunteers for Defective By Design assembled the cardboard bricks (and had some fun doing so!). They are fighting DRM by sending Nintendo... bricks? Wearing pink shirts wont get Bush thrown in jail. Wearing teabags off your hat wont get Obama impeached. And sending bricks will not get DRM removed. Protest culture in America is a hobby and will not be taken seriously, as a result. You want to stop DRM, you have to stop buying things that have it. Most people will not consider it enough of a deterrent not to, neither will most consumers even know it exists. HTC removed locked bootloaders because a large number of power users decried it, along with a large number of competitors offering similar devices. Nintendo is the only game in town when it comes to Mario. It's great to send in emails complaining about it, but the only thing that's going to stop them from putting DRM out is a necessary public outcry (not going to happen - you need every 6 year old to care), or just them just figuring out the futility of DRM (which i'm not sure the statistics on).
- tzs 15y ago
  These are the same people whose idea of fighting DRM was to attempt a DOS attack against Apple customers who needed service. Basically, they attempted to fill all the Genius Bar appointments for a weekend and then go in and read a script that called for asking the support people questions about why Apple had DRM. They suggested that people make multiple appointments at multiple stores, in order to take up as many slots as possible. Looks like they still have no clue how to actually accomplish anything. Edit: here's a link to their call for the DOS: http://www.defectivebydesign.org/apple-challenge http://www.defectivebydesign.org/apple-challenge
- jrockway 15y ago
  The point isn't that Nintendo is receiving bricks in the mail, it's that media outlets are telling users why people are sending Nintendo bricks in the mail. To get some momentum behind your cause, you have to attract attention. That's what the bricks are for. Honestly, I think Nintendo's policy was probably a CYA instead of a detailed record of what they are planning to do with your data. If that's the case, they will realize that they look somewhat evil, and reword their legal agreement. That's much more realistic than impeaching Obama.
- 15y ago

85 points by zoowar 15y ago

> The campaign aims to make all manufacturers wary about bringing their DRM-enabled products to market. DRM products have features built-in that restrict what jobs they can do. These products have been intentionally crippled from the users' perspective, and are therefore "defective by design" oh come on, that's just silly. That isn't at all what DRM does, it can be a side effect of bad DRM but good DRM doesn't "intentionally cripple" products. Why would anyone support a campaign that starts off by spreading such silly claims.

slowpoke 15y ago
There is no good DRM. Claiming otherwise is simply regurgitating the same bullshit that companies such as Ubisoft, EA and Valve spout at every given opportunity. DRM, in all of its forms, limits what you can do with the product you paid for. That is - and always will be - intentional crippling and therefore defective by design. There is no justification for these limitations besides escapist claims of "protecting intellectual property" or similar nonsense. It's simply companies trying to control (and lock in) their customers. I might add that I used to be a big fan of Nintendo for their awesome franchises. Mario, Link and all the others basically make up a good part of my childhood. To me, it's just sad to see them going down the same path as all the other publishers.
- dangrossman 15y ago
  What's the DRM in Netflix streaming restricting that you should be able to do with that stream?
  - slowpoke 15y ago
    You confuse the medium with the means of distributing said medium. The stream (distribution) is the DRM preventing me from doing what I want with the movie (medium). In other words, the stream itself is the DRM, not the thing that is restricted.
    - dangrossman 15y ago
      I disagree. What Netflix "Watch It Now" promises for your $8/month is the ability to stream a movie to a supported device. The stream is the product and the delivery method. DRM makes it practical, yet I don't think DRM restricts you from doing anything you should be able to do with that stream. The original question stands.
  - jrockway 15y ago
    Uh, watch the video on my Linux box?
- citricsquid 15y ago
  Steam is DRM, but it adds so much value. I prefer to use Steam (with the DRM) than I do to use a game that doesn't have any DRM because of how much Steam improves the process of purchasing, installing, downloading and updating games. DRM done right (eg: Steam) can be awesome.
  - devicenull 15y ago
    It's gotten to the point where I'll only buy game on Steam, because I know the experience will be 100x better then any of it's competitors. (GFWL for example, is the worst piece of software I've ever used)
  - slowpoke 15y ago
    That's just obfuscating what DRM really is. Sure, it's cool and convenient to use Steam, but it's still DRM. Gold-coated feces, if you'd prefer an analogy. Just for example, you don't actually own the game, and you can't do with it whatever you want. tl;dr: Convenience is not a justification for restrictions.
    - ugh 15y ago
      That’s an odd position, isn’t it? I have no problem believing that what you are saying is your opinion but I see no reason why everyone should be of the same opinion. Why can’t I be perfectly fine with not owning the game and not being able to do with it whatever I want in exchange for the convenience of Steam? What’s wrong with that? I can understand that you believe that those terms are not acceptable but why do you want to force me to believe the same? Even after understanding perfectly what Steam’s terms entail I still think that buying games there is a good idea. What now?
      - bad_user 15y ago
        I don't think people are complaining that games should be free of charge. People are complaining that all of a sudden, the copyright law itself is not enough. DRM is broken by design because (a) there is no DRM system that hasn't been cracked yet and (b) it punishes honest customers. Not only that, but many DRM systems require online servers to be active. You don't own the copy you purchased anymore and as soon as that verification server gets shut-down, then your local copy won't work anymore; unless you knowingly break the DMCA to workaround the DRM restrictions (which is always illegal, even if you own the copyright of said content / being the freaking author). For me, it is far more convenient to just start downloading a torrent from the dozens of trackers I have access to, than pay up for DRMed content and get punished. That I pay for the apps or other content I use, that's just because the authors deserve getting rewarded and usually it's not their fault that the distribution medium is using DRM; but when it is, that feels like a dick-move to me and I feel no remorse turning to piracy or not using the product at all.
naner 15y ago
good DRM doesn't "intentionally cripple" products. Why would anyone support a campaign that starts off by spreading such silly claims. That is the simple purpose of DRM. A digital file can be copied easily. DRM or any type of copy-protection introduces complexity to reduce this basic functionality. Reduced functionality makes a product less useful to the user. You could also say that lower cost versions of Windows 7 are crippled from the user's perspective. Parts of the OS are disabled so Microsoft can sell multiple editions at different price points. Functionality that exists is purposely reduced (crippled). To use your example of Steam: it still disallows certain types of copying. It provides additional functionality, but Steam without DRM would be more useful to the end user. I could create my own offline back up copies and share copies with people not on Steam, etc. Obviously, this might be considered bad behavior for economic/ethical reasons but the functionality provided to the user is strictly reduced by the DRM. That is the point. Steam isn't useful because of DRM, Steam is useful in spite of DRM.

mlinksva 15y ago

Unclear why the DBD home page on HN, now (a USian independence day tie-in?), but I guess it is clear why it is on the front page. I voted it up, and presumably lots of people will likewise reflexively vote up an anti-DRM link. Anyway, how goes the campaign to eliminate DRM? DRM hasn't worked to suppress unauthorized distribution (which of course was a fantasy) and isn't ubiquitous ... except where it is, e.g., Netflix and many consumer devices. As far as I can tell, the campaign is at best at a standstill. Consumer outcry even when directly harmed (e.g., useless purchases when DRM service shut down) is at best tepid. More speculatively, my default view is that DRM is a misfeature of proprietary software and culture, and will only be eliminated to the extent free software and culture win. My default view is probably short-sighted. What will be the role of DRM in attempting to control devices that have little to do with content, e.g., automated vehicles?

bluedanieru 15y ago
USian That is so stupid.

walexander 15y ago

>Holding Nintendo Accountable >volunteers for Defective By Design assembled the cardboard bricks (and had some fun doing so!). They are fighting DRM by sending Nintendo... bricks? Wearing pink shirts wont get Bush thrown in jail. Wearing teabags off your hat wont get Obama impeached. And sending bricks will not get DRM removed. Protest culture in America is a hobby and will not be taken seriously, as a result. You want to stop DRM, you have to stop buying things that have it. Most people will not consider it enough of a deterrent not to, neither will most consumers even know it exists. HTC removed locked bootloaders because a large number of power users decried it, along with a large number of competitors offering similar devices. Nintendo is the only game in town when it comes to Mario. It's great to send in emails complaining about it, but the only thing that's going to stop them from putting DRM out is a necessary public outcry (not going to happen - you need every 6 year old to care), or just them just figuring out the futility of DRM (which i'm not sure the statistics on).

tzs 15y ago
These are the same people whose idea of fighting DRM was to attempt a DOS attack against Apple customers who needed service. Basically, they attempted to fill all the Genius Bar appointments for a weekend and then go in and read a script that called for asking the support people questions about why Apple had DRM. They suggested that people make multiple appointments at multiple stores, in order to take up as many slots as possible. Looks like they still have no clue how to actually accomplish anything. Edit: here's a link to their call for the DOS: http://www.defectivebydesign.org/apple-challenge http://www.defectivebydesign.org/apple-challenge
jrockway 15y ago
The point isn't that Nintendo is receiving bricks in the mail, it's that media outlets are telling users why people are sending Nintendo bricks in the mail. To get some momentum behind your cause, you have to attract attention. That's what the bricks are for. Honestly, I think Nintendo's policy was probably a CYA instead of a detailed record of what they are planning to do with your data. If that's the case, they will realize that they look somewhat evil, and reword their legal agreement. That's much more realistic than impeaching Obama.
15y ago