5 ms·

I worked in the online media space for a long time, and the fact of the matter is that DRM enabled the era of networks putting their content online, it enabled

I worked in the online media space for a long time, and the fact of the matter is that DRM enabled the era of networks putting their content online, it enabled Netflix, etc. - DRM was the only way to get past the liability gridlock between content owners and distributors. Also, in practice DRM is bad for users only when its presence causes friction in the legitimate viewing process. It has a bad rap because, historically, it has almost always caused a lot of friction for legitimate users. More fundamentally, DRM is a bandaid whose need arises from trying to apply traditional economic models (of buying and selling physical, tangible things) to digital assets that never wear out and cost /essentially/ nothing to duplicate and distribute. Even basic concepts of ownership and having possession of something don't really apply in the traditional way. If we could start from scratch, what might work is a purely use-based model, where e.g. every time you listen to a song, you pay a tiny, tiny fee for it. This creates a much stronger correlation between creators providing value and consumers deriving value from what they created, which in the long term makes more sense anyway. There are a lot of hurdles to getting there, though. On the consumer side, the concept of paying-means-owning is pretty ingrained, so we balk at the idea of continuing to pay for something after we already bought it. On the creator/provider side, the price for each use is going to seem far lower than what they think is fair, again for largely the same reason.

viscountchocula 5y ago
That wouldn't obviate the need for DRM, though, as there would still need to be a way for the content owner to be confident that players register each use. And we sort of have this use-based system now, but with unlimited uses per month of active subscription.
- dbrueck 5y ago
  > That wouldn't obviate the need for DRM Yes and no. In order for the scheme to work, yes, you'd always need something that encourages people to play by the rules, but it would look very, very different from many of the DRM systems of today, whose focus is on shoring up the ill-fitting concepts of ownership and possession. For example, in today's DRM, it's typical to have mechanisms for granting a license to allow playing the media N times, or being able to play the media from startDate thru endDate. Most (all?) of that would go away. Ideally the new system would not have any noticeable friction for end-users, but as a practical matter, things can still work if we at least get to the point where the friction is significantly lower than just stealing it (much like today - if it's easy enough to just consume the media legitimately, for many people piracy just isn't worth the effort). > And we sort of have this use-based system now, but with unlimited uses per month of active subscription. It's definitely a partial step in that direction, yes, and I'm encouraged by the fact that I don't buy DVDs or music anymore because it shows consumers are being weaned off the concept of digital media ownership (and I hope the NFT fad dies out, because it runs counter to this). A couple of big hurdles that remain are (a) content distributors are still way too bent on gatekeeping and content control - for this to really work they are going to have to dial that back quite a bit, and (b) too little of the compensation is making it back to the content creators and/or the compensation is still often one or a few transactions (Bruce Springsteen recently sold the rights to all his music for half a billion dollars) instead of an ongoing compensation for as long as people are using it.
tomc1985 5y ago
> DRM is a bandaid whose need arises from trying to apply traditional economic models (of buying and selling physical, tangible things) to digital assets that never wear out and cost /essentially/ nothing to duplicate and distribute We need to embrace the digital model, not fight it. Detach ownership and control from the output, there are plenty of business models that work when the product is freely reproduceable. Because right now we've created a hellscape where consumers have zero control or agency over their media, and we are erasing the old ways of physically possessing it.
- swagasaurus-rex 5y ago
  Most of the examples of a free business model I can think of are built on advertising, which also requires control of the playback devices to prevent you from skipping them.
  - tomc1985 5y ago
    Advertising, merchandising, value-added services, free-to-play monetization, performances, or experiences
tenebrisalietum 5y ago
> If we could start from scratch, what might work is a purely use-based model, where e.g. every time you listen to a song, you pay a tiny, tiny fee for it. This requires something track me each time I listen to something. Why should the creator, or an agent of the creator of that work get that power over me? Traditional economics don't require this tracking. E.g. I buy a car off of a car lot--the car lot doesn't need to know where and when I'm using the car. IMHO royalty is a concept that is a burden on society and the legal system when we live in an age where it is so easy to create certain types of works - never in any point in society have there been so many writings, songs, artworks, games/software, and motion pictures produced. For copyright to really work as it's intended, all avenues of human communication need to be MITMed and massive data stores tracking everything any human being creates need to be maintained. Various cartels actively work for this.
- dbrueck 5y ago
  > Why should the creator, or an agent of the creator of that work get that power over me? Well, you have no inherent right to the creator's work at all, so consider it one of the terms of the agreement in which you get access to the content and the creator gets some form of compensation. But just to reiterate, this is how it would work under a use-based model. If you have something better to suggest, then by all means do, because I don't think we've uncovered the best solution yet. The comments about copyright require, as you noted, tracking too, but copyright itself only covers part of the problem, and that is not destroying the incentive to create and innovate in the first place (see below). > Traditional economics don't require this tracking. E.g. I buy a car off of a car lot--the car lot doesn't need to know where and when I'm using the car. Right, but traditional economic models also don't know how to deal with a situation in which you can buy a car, never have it wear out, and create an infinite number of exact duplicates for free that you could keep for yourself or turn around and sell to anyone else, which is basically the situation we have with digital works.
  - tenebrisalietum 5y ago
    > Well, you have no inherent right to the creator's work at all, so consider it one of the terms of the agreement in which you get access to the content and the creator gets some form of compensation True and a creator has no inherent right to my physical property or location info. If I hear a song over public airwaves and record it, or download it from a consenting party using bandwidth I pay for, the fact that I'm supposed to obey some license terms that I haven't consented to is an infringement on me. Creators can limit how things are released if they care so much. Supposedly Wu-Tang Clan did it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Once_Upon_a_Time_in_Shaolin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Once_Upon_a_Time_in_Shaolin. > If you have something better to suggest, then by all means do The sustainable path is commission-based works which could extend to patronage. I want something from an artist, I ask them to do it, then pay them for it. Musicians are already doing this with concerts. For things that are beyond the reach of a single person, there's no reason why this can't be done group-style a la Kickstarter-type services. If the artist wants more money, they can make more works. The mass-market motion picture and TV industry might collapse, but with the advent of streaming services it doesn't matter anymore. FWIW I do think trademark and patents are needed and do benefit society. > Right, but traditional economic models also don't know how to deal with a situation in which you can buy a car, never have it wear out, and create an infinite number of exact duplicates for free that you could keep for yourself or turn around and sell to anyone else, which is basically the situation we have with digital works. That's because an economic model resolves scarcity and is the wrong tool/framework/mindset when scarcity doesn't exist. If the above existed, then everyone should have as many cars as they want.

viscountchocula 5y ago

That wouldn't obviate the need for DRM, though, as there would still need to be a way for the content owner to be confident that players register each use. And we sort of have this use-based system now, but with unlimited uses per month of active subscription.

dbrueck 5y ago
> That wouldn't obviate the need for DRM Yes and no. In order for the scheme to work, yes, you'd always need something that encourages people to play by the rules, but it would look very, very different from many of the DRM systems of today, whose focus is on shoring up the ill-fitting concepts of ownership and possession. For example, in today's DRM, it's typical to have mechanisms for granting a license to allow playing the media N times, or being able to play the media from startDate thru endDate. Most (all?) of that would go away. Ideally the new system would not have any noticeable friction for end-users, but as a practical matter, things can still work if we at least get to the point where the friction is significantly lower than just stealing it (much like today - if it's easy enough to just consume the media legitimately, for many people piracy just isn't worth the effort). > And we sort of have this use-based system now, but with unlimited uses per month of active subscription. It's definitely a partial step in that direction, yes, and I'm encouraged by the fact that I don't buy DVDs or music anymore because it shows consumers are being weaned off the concept of digital media ownership (and I hope the NFT fad dies out, because it runs counter to this). A couple of big hurdles that remain are (a) content distributors are still way too bent on gatekeeping and content control - for this to really work they are going to have to dial that back quite a bit, and (b) too little of the compensation is making it back to the content creators and/or the compensation is still often one or a few transactions (Bruce Springsteen recently sold the rights to all his music for half a billion dollars) instead of an ongoing compensation for as long as people are using it.

tomc1985 5y ago

> DRM is a bandaid whose need arises from trying to apply traditional economic models (of buying and selling physical, tangible things) to digital assets that never wear out and cost /essentially/ nothing to duplicate and distribute We need to embrace the digital model, not fight it. Detach ownership and control from the output, there are plenty of business models that work when the product is freely reproduceable. Because right now we've created a hellscape where consumers have zero control or agency over their media, and we are erasing the old ways of physically possessing it.

swagasaurus-rex 5y ago
Most of the examples of a free business model I can think of are built on advertising, which also requires control of the playback devices to prevent you from skipping them.
- tomc1985 5y ago
  Advertising, merchandising, value-added services, free-to-play monetization, performances, or experiences

tenebrisalietum 5y ago

> If we could start from scratch, what might work is a purely use-based model, where e.g. every time you listen to a song, you pay a tiny, tiny fee for it. This requires something track me each time I listen to something. Why should the creator, or an agent of the creator of that work get that power over me? Traditional economics don't require this tracking. E.g. I buy a car off of a car lot--the car lot doesn't need to know where and when I'm using the car. IMHO royalty is a concept that is a burden on society and the legal system when we live in an age where it is so easy to create certain types of works - never in any point in society have there been so many writings, songs, artworks, games/software, and motion pictures produced. For copyright to really work as it's intended, all avenues of human communication need to be MITMed and massive data stores tracking everything any human being creates need to be maintained. Various cartels actively work for this.

dbrueck 5y ago
> Why should the creator, or an agent of the creator of that work get that power over me? Well, you have no inherent right to the creator's work at all, so consider it one of the terms of the agreement in which you get access to the content and the creator gets some form of compensation. But just to reiterate, this is how it would work under a use-based model. If you have something better to suggest, then by all means do, because I don't think we've uncovered the best solution yet. The comments about copyright require, as you noted, tracking too, but copyright itself only covers part of the problem, and that is not destroying the incentive to create and innovate in the first place (see below). > Traditional economics don't require this tracking. E.g. I buy a car off of a car lot--the car lot doesn't need to know where and when I'm using the car. Right, but traditional economic models also don't know how to deal with a situation in which you can buy a car, never have it wear out, and create an infinite number of exact duplicates for free that you could keep for yourself or turn around and sell to anyone else, which is basically the situation we have with digital works.
- tenebrisalietum 5y ago
  > Well, you have no inherent right to the creator's work at all, so consider it one of the terms of the agreement in which you get access to the content and the creator gets some form of compensation True and a creator has no inherent right to my physical property or location info. If I hear a song over public airwaves and record it, or download it from a consenting party using bandwidth I pay for, the fact that I'm supposed to obey some license terms that I haven't consented to is an infringement on me. Creators can limit how things are released if they care so much. Supposedly Wu-Tang Clan did it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Once_Upon_a_Time_in_Shaolin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Once_Upon_a_Time_in_Shaolin. > If you have something better to suggest, then by all means do The sustainable path is commission-based works which could extend to patronage. I want something from an artist, I ask them to do it, then pay them for it. Musicians are already doing this with concerts. For things that are beyond the reach of a single person, there's no reason why this can't be done group-style a la Kickstarter-type services. If the artist wants more money, they can make more works. The mass-market motion picture and TV industry might collapse, but with the advent of streaming services it doesn't matter anymore. FWIW I do think trademark and patents are needed and do benefit society. > Right, but traditional economic models also don't know how to deal with a situation in which you can buy a car, never have it wear out, and create an infinite number of exact duplicates for free that you could keep for yourself or turn around and sell to anyone else, which is basically the situation we have with digital works. That's because an economic model resolves scarcity and is the wrong tool/framework/mindset when scarcity doesn't exist. If the above existed, then everyone should have as many cars as they want.