4 ms·

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

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.

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.