3 ms·
I'm so confused. I get that he did it for his own gain, but he funded the cracking of a proprietary DRM encryption scheme. Isn't the HN community anti-MPAA, a
by gravitronic 15y ago
I'm so confused.
I get that he did it for his own gain, but he funded the cracking of a proprietary DRM encryption scheme.
Isn't the HN community anti-MPAA, anti-copyright-extension, pro-information freedom? How is this against those ideas?
The only victims I can see here are a DRM enforcement company and content producers. I thought we already agreed they were behemoths ready to be destroyed? And here we have someone financing their destruction and we don't like them?
Is it that all that rhetoric about destroying Hollywood was to destroy them without breaking the very laws we're protesting?
(this is an honest question. Please respond before downvoting.)
- kiba 15y agoIf that is merely the case, kudos to them. However, if they did something beyond cracking DRM, that's probably getting into the range of unethical. In any case, I don't really care about who win the pay-tv wars, because the internet is already the winner. In due time, it will replace traditional television.
- omh 15y agoHe did crack a proprietary DRM system, but only in order to further the success of his own service which used just as much proprietary DRM. Having said that, the ultimate result was that we got Freeview, one of the better results for UK end users in a while. And perhaps not in the best long-term interests of Sky!
- Bobby_Tables 15y agoHe wasn't cracking their DRM so that he could watch content he purchased at his leisure on the device of his choice, or so that the information could be free, or anything of that nature. He was cracking their DRM to put a competitor out of business. Nice attempt at a straw-man argument though.