5 ms·

This article is clickbait. The headline makes a bold claim, and then the article goes on to say: The purpose of DRM isn't to prevent copying, it's to prevent un

by darawk 5y ago

This article is clickbait. The headline makes a bold claim, and then the article goes on to say: The purpose of DRM isn't to prevent copying, it's to prevent unlicensed reproduction. That is, it says 'copying' in different words, by trying to talk about things adjacent to copying, like forcing ads to play. Yes, content owners want to enforce all kinds of other things with DRM, but the fundamental thing is control of playback and distribution (aka copying).

gbanfalvi 5y ago
> then the article goes on to say: The purpose of DRM isn't to prevent copying, it's to prevent unlicensed reproduction. That is, it says 'copying' in different words, by trying to talk about things adjacent to copying, I don't see that at all in the article. Anywhere. What I read in the article is that it says that the purpose of DRM isn't to prevent _unlawful behaviour_, it's to enforce _lawful behaviour_ to be performed in a specific way. The actual _act_ of copying (or distribution, or playback, which are all a form of "copying", sure) is not as relevant to the author as the way that it is being done.
jimmyearlcarter 5y ago
NikolaNovak 5y ago
I don't feel we ready the article the same way, interesting. Early in it makes a strong and specific claim : "The purpose of DRM is to give content providers leverage against creators of playback devices." This is explicitly stated and I believe a meaningful hypothesis to explore and base an article around. It frames the argument instead of just "creator vs pirates" as "one industry vs another" which is a sufficiently different ballgame. I found it quite in line with title.
- darawk 5y ago
  > "The purpose of DRM is to give content providers leverage against creators of playback devices." What does this actually mean, though? What is it that the playback devices are doing that they don't want other than playing unauthorized material? Framing the problem as "it's not about copying, it's about unauthorized playback" is meaningless. That's just another word for copying in this context. They want control over when and how their IP is played. The word 'copying' has always been shorthand for this.
  - warkdarrior 5y ago
    > They [content providers] want control over when and how their IP is played. Yes, that is indeed the case. Who is in a position to enforce those controls over playback? The device manufacturers! So we are in a scenario where device manufacturers want to commoditize the content ("play anything on as many of our devices as you want"), while content providers want to restrict the content so they can monetize access to it.
    - darawk 5y ago
      Right, I agree. I just think all that is encapsulated by the prohibition on copying. The purpose of IP law was always to protect the owners right to choose when, and in what manner, that IP may be used/redistributed. E.g. an owner has the right to say "you may only copy my IP if you watch these ads first".
Linosaurus 5y ago
> This article is clickbait. > (..) but the fundamental thing is control of playback and distribution (aka copying). Yeah. It's even arguing against itself. If I interpret it correctly, * The purpose of DRM is not to prevent copyright violations. (Implied to mean: Ensure exactly 0 copies exist online). * The purpose of DRM is to prevent copyright violations. (Implied to mean: by our paying customers)
netcan 5y ago
I disagree. The point this article is making is that DRM, as it works, is highly conducive to "platform" power. Whether or not this is the "true purpose" is a rather meaningless question, beyond casual rhetorical usage. The language of the legislation, legislators, perhaps judges will likely refer to protecting the moral rights of creators. IRL, "creator" can be whoever owns the Beatles catalogue. IRL, the who and how of controlling "playback and distribution," dictates what kind of a company will make the commercial gains. Those irl concerns exist, effect legislation and its details a lot. You could call those the "true purpose," but IMO there ain't no such thing as a generally true purpose. Different actors have different purposes.
bobsmooth 5y ago
HDCP is trivial to circumvent but no big brand will ever sell a device that promotes this functionality.

by darawk 5y ago

gbanfalvi 5y ago

> then the article goes on to say: The purpose of DRM isn't to prevent copying, it's to prevent unlicensed reproduction. That is, it says 'copying' in different words, by trying to talk about things adjacent to copying, I don't see that at all in the article. Anywhere. What I read in the article is that it says that the purpose of DRM isn't to prevent _unlawful behaviour_, it's to enforce _lawful behaviour_ to be performed in a specific way. The actual _act_ of copying (or distribution, or playback, which are all a form of "copying", sure) is not as relevant to the author as the way that it is being done.

jimmyearlcarter 5y ago

NikolaNovak 5y ago

I don't feel we ready the article the same way, interesting. Early in it makes a strong and specific claim : "The purpose of DRM is to give content providers leverage against creators of playback devices." This is explicitly stated and I believe a meaningful hypothesis to explore and base an article around. It frames the argument instead of just "creator vs pirates" as "one industry vs another" which is a sufficiently different ballgame. I found it quite in line with title.

darawk 5y ago
> "The purpose of DRM is to give content providers leverage against creators of playback devices." What does this actually mean, though? What is it that the playback devices are doing that they don't want other than playing unauthorized material? Framing the problem as "it's not about copying, it's about unauthorized playback" is meaningless. That's just another word for copying in this context. They want control over when and how their IP is played. The word 'copying' has always been shorthand for this.
- warkdarrior 5y ago
  > They [content providers] want control over when and how their IP is played. Yes, that is indeed the case. Who is in a position to enforce those controls over playback? The device manufacturers! So we are in a scenario where device manufacturers want to commoditize the content ("play anything on as many of our devices as you want"), while content providers want to restrict the content so they can monetize access to it.
  - darawk 5y ago
    Right, I agree. I just think all that is encapsulated by the prohibition on copying. The purpose of IP law was always to protect the owners right to choose when, and in what manner, that IP may be used/redistributed. E.g. an owner has the right to say "you may only copy my IP if you watch these ads first".

Linosaurus 5y ago

> This article is clickbait. > (..) but the fundamental thing is control of playback and distribution (aka copying). Yeah. It's even arguing against itself. If I interpret it correctly, * The purpose of DRM is not to prevent copyright violations. (Implied to mean: Ensure exactly 0 copies exist online). * The purpose of DRM is to prevent copyright violations. (Implied to mean: by our paying customers)

netcan 5y ago

I disagree. The point this article is making is that DRM, as it works, is highly conducive to "platform" power. Whether or not this is the "true purpose" is a rather meaningless question, beyond casual rhetorical usage. The language of the legislation, legislators, perhaps judges will likely refer to protecting the moral rights of creators. IRL, "creator" can be whoever owns the Beatles catalogue. IRL, the who and how of controlling "playback and distribution," dictates what kind of a company will make the commercial gains. Those irl concerns exist, effect legislation and its details a lot. You could call those the "true purpose," but IMO there ain't no such thing as a generally true purpose. Different actors have different purposes.

bobsmooth 5y ago

HDCP is trivial to circumvent but no big brand will ever sell a device that promotes this functionality.