5 ms·

DRM, especially the kind used in browsers, is cracked all the time. So the claim that it 'protects IP' is false. It mainly just adds a barrier to creating compa

DRM, especially the kind used in browsers, is cracked all the time. So the claim that it 'protects IP' is false. It mainly just adds a barrier to creating compatible competing browsers/players. Edit: Here's a worthy read for the topic: https://web.archive.org/web/20140906214521/https://plus.google.com/+IanHickson/posts/iPmatxBYuj2 https://web.archive.org/web/20140906214521/https://plus.goog...

CharlieDigital 4y ago
I already acknowledged this; there's no such thing as perfect DRM and there can never be. There are a million and one ways to copy content, DRM be damned. But for the majority of users, there is a balance between inconvenience, quality, and cost that DRM tips the balance just enough for a part of the market.
- EMIRELADERO 4y ago
  The problem is that DRM only has to fail/be cracked once for every piece of media. If users who wanted to pirate something had to crack the DRM every single time, I'd be with you. But that doesn't happen. Instead, scene groups crack them and upload the media on torrent sites and the like, then it's just like any other pirated piece of content. In terms of convenience DRM doesn't change a thing, because from the consumer's perspective it's all there on a torrent site, there's no way to even know if something had DRM unless you look it up specifically.
  - CharlieDigital 4y ago
    Online games include anti-cheat software. I'd argue that this is also "anti-consumer" because it forces me -- a non-cheater -- to install monitoring software. Not only that, despite this anti-cheat software, there are still cheaters in every online game! Do you take the same view that game developers should just abandon anti-cheat because it can be cracked? Should online games just abandon anti-cheat schemes? Would that be a better experience for the gamers and the developers/publishers if we just abandoned anti-cheat because it's not perfect and there are always cheaters?
    - herczegzsolt 4y ago
      I'd say yes. Anti-cheat and anti-crack has created far too many issues for me as a legitimate customer. I prefer paying for DRM-less content and opensource software, and i'd choose to pay them over commercially protected alternatives anytime.
      - CharlieDigital 4y ago
        > Anti-cheat and anti-crack has created far too many issues for me as a legitimate customer. Let me get this straight, though: you would rather that CoD, Fortnite, LoL, Lichess, etc. just make it open season; no anti-cheat. You believe that as a gamer, your gaming experience would be enhanced if there was no anti-cheat. If that's your logical conclusion -- that no anti-cheat is the answer because there are always going to be some cheaters -- then I have nothing. We'll just have to agree to disagree. As a gamer, I'm happy to install anti-cheat if it can defeat the majority of casual cheaters -- even if it costs some frames or adds overhead to the startup time.
        account42 4y ago
        Anti-cheat is a) only neccesary for for competitive games, which is only a fraction of possible games and b) only needed there because publishers want to remain in control of the servers instead of letting the community run their own. With community-run servers the admins can kick disruptive players wether they are cheaters or not, no spyware needed. You could even require your own spyware for your server and let others play on servers that are more reasonable. And for tournaments the organizer should control the hardware and software anyway to make sure there is a level playing field.
        herczegzsolt 4y ago
        I'd argue that anti-cheat is analogus to security-by-obscurity. It is basically a bad compromise to mitigate issues of a broken architecture. Imagine that online banks would do login checks on client side, and you'd have to install anti-steal software before you can login. Would that be acceptable to reduce fraudalent transactions? Of course, there'll still be a signifcant amount of stolen funds, but it'd prevent most of your neighbors to login to your account. Well, this is horrible design (and has basically happened with credit cards btw...) and you should address it at it's core, by bulding the architecture in a way that such fraudalent transactions are next-to impossible. My point is: if cheating is so much of an issue, games should be architected in a way to avoid the ability of cheating from client-side at all, without additional monitoring required. Anti-cheat is a bad workaround to a core development problem, at the expense of the customer instead of developers.
charcircuit 4y ago
The flaw with your theory is that it's not browser or video player sellers who are pushing for DRM. What interest does Netflix have in preventing competing browsers / players?
- fabrice_d 4y ago
  A major DRM scheme is Widewine, controlled by no other than Google. So you have Google which is a browser vendor, an OS vendor and DRM gatekeeper. Even if as you say Netflix is fine with competing browsers/players, as long as they use Widewine they put everyone else at the mercy of Google's decisions. This is absolutely anti-user, anti-competitive madness. Mozilla pushed back as long as possible but had to give up.
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    You do know that Firefox supports using Widevine too?
    - fabrice_d 4y ago
      Not on Linux arm64 builds because Google does not provide official Widevine packages usable for that architecture. How broken is that?

CharlieDigital 4y ago

I already acknowledged this; there's no such thing as perfect DRM and there can never be. There are a million and one ways to copy content, DRM be damned. But for the majority of users, there is a balance between inconvenience, quality, and cost that DRM tips the balance just enough for a part of the market.

EMIRELADERO 4y ago
The problem is that DRM only has to fail/be cracked once for every piece of media. If users who wanted to pirate something had to crack the DRM every single time, I'd be with you. But that doesn't happen. Instead, scene groups crack them and upload the media on torrent sites and the like, then it's just like any other pirated piece of content. In terms of convenience DRM doesn't change a thing, because from the consumer's perspective it's all there on a torrent site, there's no way to even know if something had DRM unless you look it up specifically.
- CharlieDigital 4y ago
  Online games include anti-cheat software. I'd argue that this is also "anti-consumer" because it forces me -- a non-cheater -- to install monitoring software. Not only that, despite this anti-cheat software, there are still cheaters in every online game! Do you take the same view that game developers should just abandon anti-cheat because it can be cracked? Should online games just abandon anti-cheat schemes? Would that be a better experience for the gamers and the developers/publishers if we just abandoned anti-cheat because it's not perfect and there are always cheaters?
  - herczegzsolt 4y ago
    I'd say yes. Anti-cheat and anti-crack has created far too many issues for me as a legitimate customer. I prefer paying for DRM-less content and opensource software, and i'd choose to pay them over commercially protected alternatives anytime.
    - CharlieDigital 4y ago
      > Anti-cheat and anti-crack has created far too many issues for me as a legitimate customer. Let me get this straight, though: you would rather that CoD, Fortnite, LoL, Lichess, etc. just make it open season; no anti-cheat. You believe that as a gamer, your gaming experience would be enhanced if there was no anti-cheat. If that's your logical conclusion -- that no anti-cheat is the answer because there are always going to be some cheaters -- then I have nothing. We'll just have to agree to disagree. As a gamer, I'm happy to install anti-cheat if it can defeat the majority of casual cheaters -- even if it costs some frames or adds overhead to the startup time.
      - account42 4y ago
        Anti-cheat is a) only neccesary for for competitive games, which is only a fraction of possible games and b) only needed there because publishers want to remain in control of the servers instead of letting the community run their own. With community-run servers the admins can kick disruptive players wether they are cheaters or not, no spyware needed. You could even require your own spyware for your server and let others play on servers that are more reasonable. And for tournaments the organizer should control the hardware and software anyway to make sure there is a level playing field.
      - herczegzsolt 4y ago
        I'd argue that anti-cheat is analogus to security-by-obscurity. It is basically a bad compromise to mitigate issues of a broken architecture. Imagine that online banks would do login checks on client side, and you'd have to install anti-steal software before you can login. Would that be acceptable to reduce fraudalent transactions? Of course, there'll still be a signifcant amount of stolen funds, but it'd prevent most of your neighbors to login to your account. Well, this is horrible design (and has basically happened with credit cards btw...) and you should address it at it's core, by bulding the architecture in a way that such fraudalent transactions are next-to impossible. My point is: if cheating is so much of an issue, games should be architected in a way to avoid the ability of cheating from client-side at all, without additional monitoring required. Anti-cheat is a bad workaround to a core development problem, at the expense of the customer instead of developers.

charcircuit 4y ago

The flaw with your theory is that it's not browser or video player sellers who are pushing for DRM. What interest does Netflix have in preventing competing browsers / players?

fabrice_d 4y ago
A major DRM scheme is Widewine, controlled by no other than Google. So you have Google which is a browser vendor, an OS vendor and DRM gatekeeper. Even if as you say Netflix is fine with competing browsers/players, as long as they use Widewine they put everyone else at the mercy of Google's decisions. This is absolutely anti-user, anti-competitive madness. Mozilla pushed back as long as possible but had to give up.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  You do know that Firefox supports using Widevine too?
  - fabrice_d 4y ago
    Not on Linux arm64 builds because Google does not provide official Widevine packages usable for that architecture. How broken is that?