4 ms·

IIUI it's mostly a question of a mess of contractual language and incentives. Rightsholders license content, and in their licensing contracts they require a cer

IIUI it's mostly a question of a mess of contractual language and incentives. Rightsholders license content, and in their licensing contracts they require a certain level of DRM for certain products. So streamers, etc, implement the DRM to comply with those contracts. Nobody at any level has an incentive or leverage to change the contracts, so the DRM continues.

codethief 2y ago
> IIUI If I understand incorrectly? (Jokes aside, though, I haven't been able to figure out what IIUI stands for.)
- merrywhether 2y ago
  If I understand it?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
cryptonector 2y ago
That and also various principals are under the impression that DRM is possible, therefore they should implement it because it protects their IP, and protecting their IP is a fiduciary duty, therefore they must if they can.
- anticensor 2y ago
  > protecting their IP is a fiduciary duty, This is not the case, unless we are talking about trade secrets, and in case of trade secrets, only applicable to board members and employees.
  - cryptonector 2y ago
    That's not how copyright works. The copyright owners want to maximize earnings, and the licensees/distributors also want to maximize earnings -- they are typically for-profit businesses, and as such they have a fiduciary duty to maximize earnings. If they think that DRM will help them, they'll want DRM. Of course for music DRM has proven to be pointless. People want to stream music, not buy music, and preserving media across so many media obsolenscence events has been such a pain that streaming is the only manageable solution for most people -- consumers don't want to make and manage copies anymore. The same should apply to movies and such, but maybe not -- it's not clear yet.
    - anticensor 2y ago
      > fiduciary duty to maximize earnings This is not how corporate fiduciary duties work (courts repeatedly ruled there is no explicit responsibility to maximise profits or minimise taxes; Swedish Aktienbolaget are a notable exception there), though it is a common misinterpretation of them.

codethief 2y ago

> IIUI If I understand incorrectly? (Jokes aside, though, I haven't been able to figure out what IIUI stands for.)

merrywhether 2y ago
If I understand it?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

cryptonector 2y ago

That and also various principals are under the impression that DRM is possible, therefore they should implement it because it protects their IP, and protecting their IP is a fiduciary duty, therefore they must if they can.

anticensor 2y ago
> protecting their IP is a fiduciary duty, This is not the case, unless we are talking about trade secrets, and in case of trade secrets, only applicable to board members and employees.
- cryptonector 2y ago
  That's not how copyright works. The copyright owners want to maximize earnings, and the licensees/distributors also want to maximize earnings -- they are typically for-profit businesses, and as such they have a fiduciary duty to maximize earnings. If they think that DRM will help them, they'll want DRM. Of course for music DRM has proven to be pointless. People want to stream music, not buy music, and preserving media across so many media obsolenscence events has been such a pain that streaming is the only manageable solution for most people -- consumers don't want to make and manage copies anymore. The same should apply to movies and such, but maybe not -- it's not clear yet.
  - anticensor 2y ago
    > fiduciary duty to maximize earnings This is not how corporate fiduciary duties work (courts repeatedly ruled there is no explicit responsibility to maximise profits or minimise taxes; Swedish Aktienbolaget are a notable exception there), though it is a common misinterpretation of them.