3 ms·

>This is a feature requested app developers due to the legal requirements when licensing content such as movies. Movie studios don't want people streaming or re

by aftbit 3y ago

>This is a feature requested app developers due to the legal requirements when licensing content such as movies. Movie studios don't want people streaming or recording their movies so app platforms need a way to surely show this content. Of course, but if our industry had any chutzpah, we would have simply said "no, that's impossible" and continued to distribute operating systems where the user has ultimate control over the hardware and recordings. If movie studios want people to watch their content, they'll have to accept the risk of piracy. It's not like clipping and recording from your phone is how the pirate rips appear anyway. Even imagining that a movie was released only for one model of super-secure phone, someone somewhere will either break the security or simply stick their phone in a dark box and record it with a camera. Once they've done so, they can share the un-DRMed version online on pirate sites and everyone else can download it. As long as the analog hole exists, DRM is anti-consumer without reducing the likelihood that copyrighted content will be reshared freely online.

spockz 3y ago
Don’t share this too hard. I’m afraid for a future where we are only able to watch content that is being streamed to our ocular implant directly. This has the nice benefit that it allows for hyper personalisation and always visible hyper relevant ads!
charcircuit 3y ago
>no, that's impossible When you are a platform owner it is important that you evaluate the needs of all stakeholders and not just the needs of the users of the platforms. Telling app developers that you are not willing to compromise is not a great way to convince them to create apps for your platform. Also as a platform you want your platform to appear as a safe place for content owners to have their content on. You will have trouble convincing content owners that your platform is safe if it's security is much worse than everyone else's
- kerkeslager 3y ago
  > When you are a platform owner it is important that you evaluate the needs of all stakeholders and not just the needs of the users of the platforms. I disagree. The literal entire purpose of every single non-user entity involved in this situation is to serve users, and if it's not serving users, then that's a systemic failure. If corporations want a place at the table, they should be serving users, and if they can't serve users, there should not be a table for them to sit at, period. In the cases referenced, that means DRM should be illegal, period. Platforms shouldn't have to allow DRM to attract content creators, because there should not be competitors that have DRM. If the option to have DRM doesn't exist, then platforms don't have to compete to attract content creators with user-hostile misfeatures like DRM. Our economy should be designed to serve people, not corporations. Anything else is a failure. I understand the law says corporations are people. I'm saying the law is wrong.
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    >they should be serving users Bringing content users want to watch is serving users. >DRM should be illegal, period Why? It is preventing users from doing illegal things. Saying that DRM should be removed so that users can make illegal copies of the media they are watching is not a strong argument to me. >Our economy should be designed to serve people, not corporations People make content and people want to be able to have their copyright not be infringed. Computers by default make it way to easy to violate the copyright of creators which in why making it possible to secure content is such a valuable idea.
    - progval 3y ago
      DRM also prevents users from doing legal things. Such as making copies for personal use, which is legal in France. Or when done by library or archive, in the US. Or copying short clips, which is legal as "fair use" in many jurisdictions.
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      > People make content and people want to be able to have their copyright not be infringed. Tough shit. Copyright is entirely arbitrary, and it's bad actors have ruined it for everyone else. DRM will be evil for as long as "buying isn't "owning"; until then piracy will be strictly superior. > Computers by default make it way to easy to violate the copyright of creators And my kitchen knives by default make it way too easy to violate homicide laws. You can argue it is overall more beneficial to the consumer to disadvantage themselves so the market can thrive, but that's still an anti-consumer market.

by aftbit 3y ago

spockz 3y ago

Don’t share this too hard. I’m afraid for a future where we are only able to watch content that is being streamed to our ocular implant directly. This has the nice benefit that it allows for hyper personalisation and always visible hyper relevant ads!

charcircuit 3y ago

>no, that's impossible When you are a platform owner it is important that you evaluate the needs of all stakeholders and not just the needs of the users of the platforms. Telling app developers that you are not willing to compromise is not a great way to convince them to create apps for your platform. Also as a platform you want your platform to appear as a safe place for content owners to have their content on. You will have trouble convincing content owners that your platform is safe if it's security is much worse than everyone else's

kerkeslager 3y ago
> When you are a platform owner it is important that you evaluate the needs of all stakeholders and not just the needs of the users of the platforms. I disagree. The literal entire purpose of every single non-user entity involved in this situation is to serve users, and if it's not serving users, then that's a systemic failure. If corporations want a place at the table, they should be serving users, and if they can't serve users, there should not be a table for them to sit at, period. In the cases referenced, that means DRM should be illegal, period. Platforms shouldn't have to allow DRM to attract content creators, because there should not be competitors that have DRM. If the option to have DRM doesn't exist, then platforms don't have to compete to attract content creators with user-hostile misfeatures like DRM. Our economy should be designed to serve people, not corporations. Anything else is a failure. I understand the law says corporations are people. I'm saying the law is wrong.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  >they should be serving users Bringing content users want to watch is serving users. >DRM should be illegal, period Why? It is preventing users from doing illegal things. Saying that DRM should be removed so that users can make illegal copies of the media they are watching is not a strong argument to me. >Our economy should be designed to serve people, not corporations People make content and people want to be able to have their copyright not be infringed. Computers by default make it way to easy to violate the copyright of creators which in why making it possible to secure content is such a valuable idea.
  - progval 3y ago
    DRM also prevents users from doing legal things. Such as making copies for personal use, which is legal in France. Or when done by library or archive, in the US. Or copying short clips, which is legal as "fair use" in many jurisdictions.
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    > People make content and people want to be able to have their copyright not be infringed. Tough shit. Copyright is entirely arbitrary, and it's bad actors have ruined it for everyone else. DRM will be evil for as long as "buying isn't "owning"; until then piracy will be strictly superior. > Computers by default make it way to easy to violate the copyright of creators And my kitchen knives by default make it way too easy to violate homicide laws. You can argue it is overall more beneficial to the consumer to disadvantage themselves so the market can thrive, but that's still an anti-consumer market.