4 ms·

The DRM user is the publisher, not the user of the program itself.

by ahelwer 15y ago

jonhohle 15y ago
I disagree. The Publisher in this case is the programmer - or at least distributor - of the program. Content consumers are the intended user.
- namdnay 15y ago
  I have to disagree with you there, clearly the user of DRM is the copyright holder. They are using the tool to perform their activity, that of "safely" leasing their content to consumers. In the same way, the user of DirectX is the game publisher, not the consumer who buys the game.
  - jonhohle 15y ago
    I am my DVD player's user. The copyright holder does not come to my house to operate my DVD player. It will not allow me to play discs not encoded for my region. This program is not written for my preference or use, but in opposition to me. It also does not allow me to bypass certain segments of videos. Again - it opposes me. If it was written for me - the user - it would allow me to bypass all content and jump directly to the first title of every disc I inserted. The producers of this software have explicitly made it hostile to the user. I'm not saying this is not within their rights - I'm just saying it is. But this is a rat hole. My point was that this is not what Linus was saying. He was merely describing the purpose of one software component. A kernel is a hardware abstraction - a platform for building applications without concern for the details of components - including the version of the kernel itself. He was arguing against breaking that contract by introducing a change which fit the whims of the contributor but would break an unknown number of binaries compiled against that contract. tl;dr - "user" is not the same as "user-space"
- dredmorbius 15y ago
  DRM covers an information or entertainment product. In many or most cases, the end-user is paying for this product. The publisher is paying for, and benefitting from, the DRM capabilities or service, offered by the DRM system/software. There are two markets and products at play here.
nitrogen 15y ago
I find myself growing tired of our trend of redefining words to make our favorite clichés apply to our favorite companies. Some examples: "The customer is always right." -> "You're the product, not the customer." "Software is made for users." -> "The publisher is the user, not you." Sure, these things sound clever at first, but they only serve to increase our acceptance of these encroachments upon the rights of consumers and responsibilities of corporations by altering our vocabulary to fit these practices. Let's just stick with the traditional definitions (e.g. user: "the one sitting at the computer") and stop twisting words to accommodate things like DRM and privacy-invasive tracking.
- dredmorbius 15y ago
  I disagree with both your points. This isn't a redefinition of words. It's a clarification of the true situation. Again: if you're not paying for the product, and somebody else is, then you're the product, and your use of a system or viewing content, etc., is an intentional objective of the payer. You'd be well advised to be aware of this, because you're being manipulated. And the fact that someone else is paying for the system doesn't make it right. Just because I'm not paying for a DRM'd product (and very often you do pay) doesn't make it "right". In this case, usually, there are to goods in question: the information good for which you are the customer, that's covered by a DRM "service", for which the publisher is the customer. There are also goods for which there is no intrinsic monetary market, or for which the market is at best diffuse. Language is one such good (there are very few people whose paycheck is based on maintaining, debugging, and extending the English language, for example). Free Software is another, though there are both paid and unpaid contributors. And you might well ask what the objectives of those who are actively contributing are (propagandists and marketing types influence English, device manufacturers and standards promoters write significant amounts of Free Software).
- tjoff 15y ago
  I see "You're the product, not the customer." and "The publisher is the user, not you." as labels of warnings. For me that isn't twisting words to accomodate things like DRM and privacy-invasive tracking. If you tried to mask "You're the product, not the customer." as "The customer is always right." and "The publisher is the user, not you." as "Software is made for users." you'd be twisting words. If I'm the product or the publisher is the user I'm very careful with what I share or do on the service. One of the many reasons for why it wouldn't affect me much at all if google disappeared tomorrow.

The DRM user is the publisher, not the user of the program itself.

by ahelwer 15y ago

The DRM user is the publisher, not the user of the program itself.

I disagree. The Publisher in this case is the programmer - or at least distributor - of the program. Content consumers are the intended user.

namdnay 15y ago
I have to disagree with you there, clearly the user of DRM is the copyright holder. They are using the tool to perform their activity, that of "safely" leasing their content to consumers. In the same way, the user of DirectX is the game publisher, not the consumer who buys the game.
- jonhohle 15y ago
  I am my DVD player's user. The copyright holder does not come to my house to operate my DVD player. It will not allow me to play discs not encoded for my region. This program is not written for my preference or use, but in opposition to me. It also does not allow me to bypass certain segments of videos. Again - it opposes me. If it was written for me - the user - it would allow me to bypass all content and jump directly to the first title of every disc I inserted. The producers of this software have explicitly made it hostile to the user. I'm not saying this is not within their rights - I'm just saying it is. But this is a rat hole. My point was that this is not what Linus was saying. He was merely describing the purpose of one software component. A kernel is a hardware abstraction - a platform for building applications without concern for the details of components - including the version of the kernel itself. He was arguing against breaking that contract by introducing a change which fit the whims of the contributor but would break an unknown number of binaries compiled against that contract. tl;dr - "user" is not the same as "user-space"
dredmorbius 15y ago
DRM covers an information or entertainment product. In many or most cases, the end-user is paying for this product. The publisher is paying for, and benefitting from, the DRM capabilities or service, offered by the DRM system/software. There are two markets and products at play here.

nitrogen 15y ago

I find myself growing tired of our trend of redefining words to make our favorite clichés apply to our favorite companies. Some examples: "The customer is always right." -> "You're the product, not the customer." "Software is made for users." -> "The publisher is the user, not you." Sure, these things sound clever at first, but they only serve to increase our acceptance of these encroachments upon the rights of consumers and responsibilities of corporations by altering our vocabulary to fit these practices. Let's just stick with the traditional definitions (e.g. user: "the one sitting at the computer") and stop twisting words to accommodate things like DRM and privacy-invasive tracking.

dredmorbius 15y ago
I disagree with both your points. This isn't a redefinition of words. It's a clarification of the true situation. Again: if you're not paying for the product, and somebody else is, then you're the product, and your use of a system or viewing content, etc., is an intentional objective of the payer. You'd be well advised to be aware of this, because you're being manipulated. And the fact that someone else is paying for the system doesn't make it right. Just because I'm not paying for a DRM'd product (and very often you do pay) doesn't make it "right". In this case, usually, there are to goods in question: the information good for which you are the customer, that's covered by a DRM "service", for which the publisher is the customer. There are also goods for which there is no intrinsic monetary market, or for which the market is at best diffuse. Language is one such good (there are very few people whose paycheck is based on maintaining, debugging, and extending the English language, for example). Free Software is another, though there are both paid and unpaid contributors. And you might well ask what the objectives of those who are actively contributing are (propagandists and marketing types influence English, device manufacturers and standards promoters write significant amounts of Free Software).
tjoff 15y ago
I see "You're the product, not the customer." and "The publisher is the user, not you." as labels of warnings. For me that isn't twisting words to accomodate things like DRM and privacy-invasive tracking. If you tried to mask "You're the product, not the customer." as "The customer is always right." and "The publisher is the user, not you." as "Software is made for users." you'd be twisting words. If I'm the product or the publisher is the user I'm very careful with what I share or do on the service. One of the many reasons for why it wouldn't affect me much at all if google disappeared tomorrow.