4 ms·

Many rights holders would have different views of what's moral here. I kind of feel like I repeatedly observe a bit of cognitive dissonance among some users on

Many rights holders would have different views of what's moral here. I kind of feel like I repeatedly observe a bit of cognitive dissonance among some users on HN (not suggesting josephcsible is). There's often a lot of discussion about 'freedom' but what most often mean is 'my freedom'. This is about balancing the freedom of content producers/rights holders to choose the methods of distribution of their content, and the freedom of content consumers to choose how they'd like to receive their content. Not sure where the line lies but talk of 'morals' seems like trying to simplify a non-trivial problem.

grishka 2y ago
IMO the line is my device having non-removable hardware modules that are specifically designed to protect the device from me, its legitimate owner. I'm fine with software-only DRM, it'll always get broken by someone eventually anyway. But all the ARM TrustZone bullshit and secure boot with unchangeable signing keys? This has no right to exist in this universe. And I don't give much of a crap about copyright owners. Copyright in its current form mostly doesn't work for its intended purpose anyway, it only works for corporate rent seeking.
- talldayo 2y ago
  You and I can agree on all that, but it won't make anyone care. When the dust settles, the ARM TrustZone bullshit and bootloader locking is justifiable, even if only with inferior rationale. The state of consumer protections in America are not even remotely advanced enough to push back on this behavior, and businesses are ever grateful. Zooming out, fighting against DRM APIs is not even a hill worth dying on. Stopping it would mean attacking a healthy and legal market that has multiple worse alternatives they can roll out. A more realistic goal is separating App Stores and App runtimes, to prevent anyone from conflating the two and playing keep-away with basic functionality of devices that people own.
josephcsible 2y ago
IMO, the line is clear: if you own a physical device, it's immoral for anyone else to restrict your ability to do anything whatsoever on that device.
- phs318u 2y ago
  But the restriction exists and is known before you buy the device. The market offers alternatives. When buyers choose an iPhone or Samsung phone ahead of a Fairphone they are choosing among different trade-offs. For myself I’ve chosen an iPhone because I value the hardware quality over the freedom offered by the Fairphone. But I have a choice. The freedom I don’t have is to demand the market supply a “Goldilocks” device that meets all my requirements. The fact that Fairphone exists tells me that there’s no structural impediment to the market providing such a device. Their market share reflects the number of people for whom the kind of freedom you want is valued above other requirements.

grishka 2y ago

IMO the line is my device having non-removable hardware modules that are specifically designed to protect the device from me, its legitimate owner. I'm fine with software-only DRM, it'll always get broken by someone eventually anyway. But all the ARM TrustZone bullshit and secure boot with unchangeable signing keys? This has no right to exist in this universe. And I don't give much of a crap about copyright owners. Copyright in its current form mostly doesn't work for its intended purpose anyway, it only works for corporate rent seeking.

talldayo 2y ago
You and I can agree on all that, but it won't make anyone care. When the dust settles, the ARM TrustZone bullshit and bootloader locking is justifiable, even if only with inferior rationale. The state of consumer protections in America are not even remotely advanced enough to push back on this behavior, and businesses are ever grateful. Zooming out, fighting against DRM APIs is not even a hill worth dying on. Stopping it would mean attacking a healthy and legal market that has multiple worse alternatives they can roll out. A more realistic goal is separating App Stores and App runtimes, to prevent anyone from conflating the two and playing keep-away with basic functionality of devices that people own.

josephcsible 2y ago

IMO, the line is clear: if you own a physical device, it's immoral for anyone else to restrict your ability to do anything whatsoever on that device.

phs318u 2y ago
But the restriction exists and is known before you buy the device. The market offers alternatives. When buyers choose an iPhone or Samsung phone ahead of a Fairphone they are choosing among different trade-offs. For myself I’ve chosen an iPhone because I value the hardware quality over the freedom offered by the Fairphone. But I have a choice. The freedom I don’t have is to demand the market supply a “Goldilocks” device that meets all my requirements. The fact that Fairphone exists tells me that there’s no structural impediment to the market providing such a device. Their market share reflects the number of people for whom the kind of freedom you want is valued above other requirements.