3 ms·

No, it's not stupid because it works pretty well. But preventing you from saving content is not the actual intention behind DRM. It's just the easiest way to hi

No, it's not stupid because it works pretty well. But preventing you from saving content is not the actual intention behind DRM. It's just the easiest way to hinder you from re-distribution.

iSnow 5y ago
>because it works pretty well. How do they enforce it on the web client?
- johnisgood 5y ago
  They cannot.
endisneigh 5y ago
Something working pretty well (which this doesn’t since it’s not respected in all telegram clients anyway) doesn’t mean it’s not stupid. And again, this doesn’t prevent redistribution.
- polycaster 5y ago
  Well, as I said, it hinders you from redistribution – it doesn't need to shut it down completely to fullfill its goal. Also I assume it's working in a the way intended. It may be a stupid thing to do from your or my perspective because it doesn't work towards our benefit – but the rational behind it is sane. That's what I meant with „not stupid”. I just realize I sound like this sickening utilitarian tone you find in HN discussions so often. Sorry for going that way. Basically I'm with you, it's stupid when you take a step back.
- Cederfjard 5y ago
  The lock on your front door doesn’t prevent me from entering if I really want to, but it’s a deterrent and a clear signal of your intent, that I’m not to enter without your permission.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    Not the analogous situation.
    - Cederfjard 5y ago
      You keep saying that, but I think that maybe you could make a better effort to understand other people’s analogies, even when they don’t map neatly to the mental model you have in mind. My point is that a prevention mechanism can have utility for those employing it, even if it’s trivially circumvented by those who really want to. It does not have to be a binary thing, where either it works perfectly 100% of the time or it’s useless. It’s obvious to me that this feature could have a stifling effect on spread of content, and that might be well enough to have fulfilled its purpose. Mind you, ideologically I do not necessarily agree with it, but that’s another matter.
    - polycaster 5y ago
      Actually it fits quite well.

No, it's not stupid because it works pretty well. But preventing you from saving content is not the actual intention behind DRM. It's just the easiest way to hinder you from re-distribution.

iSnow 5y ago

>because it works pretty well. How do they enforce it on the web client?

johnisgood 5y ago
They cannot.

endisneigh 5y ago

Something working pretty well (which this doesn’t since it’s not respected in all telegram clients anyway) doesn’t mean it’s not stupid. And again, this doesn’t prevent redistribution.

polycaster 5y ago
Well, as I said, it hinders you from redistribution – it doesn't need to shut it down completely to fullfill its goal. Also I assume it's working in a the way intended. It may be a stupid thing to do from your or my perspective because it doesn't work towards our benefit – but the rational behind it is sane. That's what I meant with „not stupid”. I just realize I sound like this sickening utilitarian tone you find in HN discussions so often. Sorry for going that way. Basically I'm with you, it's stupid when you take a step back.
Cederfjard 5y ago
The lock on your front door doesn’t prevent me from entering if I really want to, but it’s a deterrent and a clear signal of your intent, that I’m not to enter without your permission.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  Not the analogous situation.
  - Cederfjard 5y ago
    You keep saying that, but I think that maybe you could make a better effort to understand other people’s analogies, even when they don’t map neatly to the mental model you have in mind. My point is that a prevention mechanism can have utility for those employing it, even if it’s trivially circumvented by those who really want to. It does not have to be a binary thing, where either it works perfectly 100% of the time or it’s useless. It’s obvious to me that this feature could have a stifling effect on spread of content, and that might be well enough to have fulfilled its purpose. Mind you, ideologically I do not necessarily agree with it, but that’s another matter.
  - polycaster 5y ago
    Actually it fits quite well.