3 ms·

I expected more from HN. If anyone bothered to read the article (which, btw, was posted with a disingenuous title...shame on you OP), you would see that Protect

I expected more from HN. If anyone bothered to read the article (which, btw, was posted with a disingenuous title...shame on you OP), you would see that Protected Content is only available in Groups and Channels, and is not on by default. It seems a lot of people don't realize that Telegram is used for more than chatting with your contacts. Telegram Groups and Channels serve as a content delivery system, with access often restricted behind some kind of pay system like Patreon or Telegram's own Payments API (think OnlyFans and private Discords). This is a boon to content creators as it protects their payed Telegram content from being easily shared into other Telegram Channels. Telegram quietly transcended beyond chat app and into the social media arena a while ago. It's about time HN caught up.

nine_k 5y ago
While this should work against unsophisticated users, the "analog hole" cannot be really plugged: the user has to see or hear the protected content. At that moment, the content may be grabbed (in a bit-perfect way, with some luck). So, this can curb sharing but not really prevent it. Will it be a net positive? Let's see.
- afiori 5y ago
  in general even if decent copies are easy drm can be effective: not in preventing copies but in making paying users feel they got their worth. I am generally of the opinion that piracy is a net positive, but I am ok with pirated content being slightly degraded, analog copies often meet this criteria
Zambyte 5y ago
> which, btw, was posted with a disingenuous title...shame on you OP How is it disingenuous? They introduced DRM. Call it "protected content" if you want,but that honestly seems more disingenuous than simply calling it "DRM". > This is a boon to content creators as it protects their payed Telegram content from being easily shared into other Telegram Channels. No it doesn't. DRM doesn't work. End of story. Telegram has a public API and a Free Software client. All someone has to do is fork the client and disable screenshot / screen recorder blocking. At best they can block "forwarding" so you can't actually see what user originally sent the message. Once you send someone content on Telegram, you have no technical capability to stop them from doing what they want with it.
- afiori 5y ago
  story time: in some country poultry farmers are given based on selling prices of their products, except that for this particular case there is no market consult so the farmer is asked "how much would have people payed for your stuff" and he or she guesses some number. obviously everyone cheated that question to get more money; a year they essentially changed the module to add a "are you lying?" question and suddenly this lowered significantly the overestimated prices farmers declared --- this does not apply 1-1 to DRM in telegram (they removed the download option, not just added a warning), but I find it a relevant story to a broad interpretation of "DRM doesn't work"
  - Zambyte 5y ago
    "DRM doesn't work" in the sense that it does not, and cannot, stop users from copying media, it only can make it more difficult. Of course being more difficult can dissuade some non zero % of people who otherwise would have committed the terrible act of Unauthorized Copying, so you could say it works in that sense.

nine_k 5y ago

While this should work against unsophisticated users, the "analog hole" cannot be really plugged: the user has to see or hear the protected content. At that moment, the content may be grabbed (in a bit-perfect way, with some luck). So, this can curb sharing but not really prevent it. Will it be a net positive? Let's see.

afiori 5y ago
in general even if decent copies are easy drm can be effective: not in preventing copies but in making paying users feel they got their worth. I am generally of the opinion that piracy is a net positive, but I am ok with pirated content being slightly degraded, analog copies often meet this criteria

Zambyte 5y ago

> which, btw, was posted with a disingenuous title...shame on you OP How is it disingenuous? They introduced DRM. Call it "protected content" if you want,but that honestly seems more disingenuous than simply calling it "DRM". > This is a boon to content creators as it protects their payed Telegram content from being easily shared into other Telegram Channels. No it doesn't. DRM doesn't work. End of story. Telegram has a public API and a Free Software client. All someone has to do is fork the client and disable screenshot / screen recorder blocking. At best they can block "forwarding" so you can't actually see what user originally sent the message. Once you send someone content on Telegram, you have no technical capability to stop them from doing what they want with it.

afiori 5y ago
story time: in some country poultry farmers are given based on selling prices of their products, except that for this particular case there is no market consult so the farmer is asked "how much would have people payed for your stuff" and he or she guesses some number. obviously everyone cheated that question to get more money; a year they essentially changed the module to add a "are you lying?" question and suddenly this lowered significantly the overestimated prices farmers declared --- this does not apply 1-1 to DRM in telegram (they removed the download option, not just added a warning), but I find it a relevant story to a broad interpretation of "DRM doesn't work"
- Zambyte 5y ago
  "DRM doesn't work" in the sense that it does not, and cannot, stop users from copying media, it only can make it more difficult. Of course being more difficult can dissuade some non zero % of people who otherwise would have committed the terrible act of Unauthorized Copying, so you could say it works in that sense.