6 ms·

The same argument applies to DRM and piracy. DRM only disadvantages people who want to consume content legally. Only one person has to bypass it (be it through

by aftbit 2mo ago

The same argument applies to DRM and piracy. DRM only disadvantages people who want to consume content legally. Only one person has to bypass it (be it through cryptographic or software failings or the good old fashioned analog hole ala telesync) then upload the resulting unencumbered media file to a piracy site. As a result, it's not just cheaper, but also easier and more reliable to steal media than it is to buy it legally. What would happen if media were offered without DRM? Everything would be on a piracy site? It already is.

belinder 2mo ago
Drm is not targeted at the hardcore pirate, it's targeted at a potentially larger percentage of people who would be tempted to get the thing for free if it was easy. Drm may be circumventable, but any complex set of steps for doing so is enough to deter that target audience.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- ACCount37 2mo ago
  The point is: DRM is circumvented once, by some grizzled pirate captain. Everyone else just gets to plunder their downloads DRM free, nice and easy. DRM is ineffective because the pirate uploaders are competent enough to break it, and an average end user only downloads - rank and file pirates wouldn't make their own releases even if DRM never existed and making them was easy.
- Cider9986 2mo ago
  But why would this larger percentage of people rip it themselves when the hardcore pirate already did it and made it accessible[1]? [1] https://fmhy.net/video#streaming-sites https://fmhy.net/video#streaming-sites
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  - DrewADesign 2mo ago
    The average user would probably pay more for a different video streaming platform if their current one started requiring 4 or 5 more clicks per view. “Complex set of steps” for most people could involve finding a website that wasn’t explicitly advertised to them, using an interface that wasn’t AB tested into oblivion, and inexplicably having to “update their flash player” every single time they want to watch Barney Miller. Never mind bit torrent: you might as well ask them to build themselves a TV from scratch. They could figure it out— they aren’t (necessarily) dumb— but they really don’t want to have to figure it out. They just want it to work without friction.
- inigyou 2mo ago
  But it is easy to get the thing for free, because the free one doesn't have DRM.
- dijksterhuis 2mo ago
  > Drm is not targeted at the hardcore pirate, it's targeted at a potentially larger percentage of people who would be tempted to get the thing for free if it was easy spotify and netflix are both prime examples of making it easier for a larger population to access drm enabled content compared to pirated content (at the time they started getting popular anyway). with the advent of streaming services you no longer needed to download potentially dodgy files to your computer (viruses/malware), wait for the download to finish, realise they’re a dodgy video cam recording of the cinema screening, download another one etc. napster/limewire et. al were originally examples for the opposite case. pirating via those was super popular. there were fewer steps to access the media compared to going to a physical shop to buy a CD/DVD. (*) (*) i can’t remember when the itunes store came along. might have been after these services? or around the same-ish time?
- tptacek 2mo ago
  DRM also intensively targets the new-release window during which much of the returns on any piece of IP are made; the latency with which high-quality copies hit mainstream sites has monetary value as well.
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
- matheusmoreira 2mo ago
  Piracy is a service problem. Copyright monopolists always defeat themselves with their obnoxious greed. Things were easy enough when Netflix had a complete catalog, now every studio wants to roll their own shitty streaming services in order to cut Netflix out. Result is a fragmented mess where you want to watch a great film but you have no idea where the hell it even is, and even if you find it you discover it doesn't work because your computer isn't locked down to their tastes, and even if you buy a TV appliance they stream you some shitty horribly compressied "high definition" video with artifacts in pure black frames, all on their homegrown laggy borderline unusable video players with zero features. Meanwhile the pirates offer Blu-Ray remuxes with commentary tracks, subtitles for every language, DRM free files that just work on your video player of choice. It's the sort of thing that makes me feel like a total moron for giving money to these corporations.
  - bitwize 2mo ago
    Apple TV has a search function that allows you to find a film or series irrespectice of whatever service it's on, and launch the appropriate app to play it.
    - Aurornis 2mo ago
      Some times I read these mental gymnastics comments about piracy being easier and wonder if these people have actually tried to learn how to use something like an Apple TV. I think the services part they really dislike is just the part where your credit card gets charged when you click the buy or rent button. Doing all of the piracy stuff with VPNs and navigating torrent sites and getting a setup where you can play files on your TV is an order of magnitude more work.
      - vermilingua 2mo ago
        Sometimes I read these mental gymnastics comments about being leashed to half a dozen providers for “convenience” and wonder if these people have actually tried to learn how to use something like a NAS. I think the part they really dislike is the undermining of the moral superiority they claim by donating their money to corporations that contribute ~nothing to the actual evolution of culture. Inventing strawmans about how difficult it is to click one button in Jellyseer and have a max-quality, buffering free copy of what you want to watch in perpetuity is an order of magnitude more work than renting a poor-quality subset of the media that publishers consider it profitable to provide.
- DrewADesign 2mo ago
  “Locks only keep an honest man honest.” -Most people’s grandfather (I’m not saying these things are equal — just that this concept and the old saying share a perspective on securing things.)
- tshaddox 2mo ago
  I think that's also wrong. I think that the primary reason media publishers use DRM is not to prevent copyright infringement. It's really to exert power over the entire ecosystem and use that power to implement rules around content distribution and use that are much more restrictive than the actual copyright law itself.
  - bitwize 2mo ago
    To copyright owners, there really is no difference. In many countries, notably not the USA, copyright is bound up with the broader concept of authors' rights, including the right to control whether, where, when, and how a work is exhibited. Rightsholders in the U.S. still believe in authors' rights from a moral standpoint; Jack Valenti wanted to outlaw VCRs because he was afraid of the rise of bootleg tapes, sure, but he also believed that movies were intended to be shown in theaters, and maybe only much later, licensed for television. Copyright and control over the distribution network were indistinguishable to him.
    - tshaddox 2mo ago
      Jack Valenti wanted to ban VCRs because he didn’t have more advanced DRM technology at that time. Publishers now have HDCP, so they don’t need to lobby the government to ban VCRs. They can just make sure to never license HDCP to any device manufactures that want to sell a recording device.
- sandworm101 2mo ago
  >> complex set of steps for doing so is enough to deter that target audience. Finding and playing what I want via netflix or amazon is far far more complex than downloading and playing a video from a pirate website. Want to watch the original non-upgraded Star Wars, good luck even finding it on any streaming service. But it is instantly available via any number of pirate sites.
- amluto 2mo ago
  I think there’s a difference between what people think they’re aiming at and what they actually aim at. Media DRM makes it harder for the person who can already legally access it to use it or share it in an unapproved manner. Or maybe to avoid ads, but that’s pretty rare. So DRMing a media file or stream has approximately no effect on the ability of a non-paying customer to get pirate it, because anyone searching for a pirated copy can find a DRM-free version anyway.
- MattPalmer1086 2mo ago
  But its all available easily with the DRM already stripped off by the hard core pirates. My best friend used to download pirated movies all the time - because it was easier than trying to get what he wanted by legal channels. It wasnt even the cost. When Netflix took off, he stopped pirating and paid the subscription.
- xboxnolifes 2mo ago
  While i agree, certain DRM (video streaming) has gotten to the point where its made getting a show legally, at 1080p+, more trouble than pirating. And not from lack of DRM. There's a certain good middle ground and I think we've passed it.
starrybreak 2mo ago
Users hate it, but DRM is vastly more powerful than that since you ultimately control user access. DRM - which all online services with user profiling automatically have - can also let you ban users, retarget users for ads, abuse, and other things beyond the basic function of running the software.
- coretx 2mo ago
  Such as bypassing parliament -the people responsible for managing your rights-. And subverting democracy and the rule of law too, by punishing you or otherwise manipulate you into desired behavior without going to court. Code is Law. DRM is violence.
conception 2mo ago
Yet Netflix is as profitable as Disney. Having loved through netflix and popcorn tv that wouldn’t be the case without drm.
bitwize 2mo ago
DRM does the job it's supposed to which is prevent casual piracy and increase the amount of effort it takes to pirate something. A thief could rob your house if they bumped your lock or just smashed your window. But that doesn't make door locks useless as those have large costs in terms of effort and risk. So the lock is still effective at preventing someone from just walking in and taking your stuff. It's the same with DRM. Without it, media would appear on piracy sites instantly upon release. DRM makes things harder to pirate, and pirated editions harder to get. And the DMCA makes defeating DRM a felony under U.S. law, so pirate networks are riskier to establish, driving piracy underground. It's doing the job it's supposed to do. It's not going anywhere.
perpetuallunch 2mo ago
Cheaper & easier - not by much. Australia blocks all the good torrent sites, so now I need a VPN, a reputable one. Also need terabytes of network connected storage, and usually I need more and more of it over time. Better and more networking equipment to buy and maintain. Media management and streaming software that works locally and remotely, to (maybe buy) and maintain. Or I can usage discount offers for the various streaming platforms, and pay for each one I want to watch something on from time to time. The streaming services also don’t come with who knows what malware like pirated media can. And a YouTube Premium subscription because you get ad free YouTube Music and ad free YouTube.
- reactordev 2mo ago
  It’s cat and mouse game. Australia blocks sites, sites move urls. If you don’t keep up, then they have caught you too. Streaming sites can just delete your purchases whenever they want to. Sony already has.
- AussieWog93 2mo ago
  It's only a DNS block fwiw. If you set your DNS to 1.1.1.1 or 8.8.8.8 everything works fine.
  - perpetuallunch 2mo ago
    I recently realised even the build in iOS Private Relay gets around the Australian Government site blocks.
- zarzavat 2mo ago
  This is true for music because the labels decided that they would upload their catalogs to every streaming service. It's not true for movies, because the movie industry decided to sign exclusivity deals or make movies only available on their own platforms. Thus piracy is still the only reliable way to watch movies: you might get access to some subset of movies depending on which streaming service you subscribe to, but certainly not to all of them.
  - 2mo ago
PunchyHamster 2mo ago
> What would happen if media were offered without DRM? Everything would be on a piracy site? It already is. But the media ARE offered without DRM. At least many video games, the big ones too. And somehow they sell just fine
VeninVidiaVicii 2mo ago
You wouldn’t steal a Claude!
mannanj 2mo ago
I often buy content to support the creators, then download it on torrent sites because the UI and experience is better. I can use whatever player I want, modify the screen size more and have no branding bloat (Amazon Prime! Youtube! Netflix! etc) and have a better, more focused, and even off-line friendly experience. It gets deleted, I move on with life. But man the experiences in branded players really sucks, and I wish it were better.
alfiedotwtf 2mo ago
> As a result, it's not just cheaper, but also easier and more reliable to steal media than it is to buy it legally. > > What would happen if media were offered without DRM? You kind of answered your own question. What you should have asked instead was - What would happen if media and payment was a straight forward offer we would have Netflix

by aftbit 2mo ago

belinder 2mo ago

Drm is not targeted at the hardcore pirate, it's targeted at a potentially larger percentage of people who would be tempted to get the thing for free if it was easy. Drm may be circumventable, but any complex set of steps for doing so is enough to deter that target audience.

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
ACCount37 2mo ago
The point is: DRM is circumvented once, by some grizzled pirate captain. Everyone else just gets to plunder their downloads DRM free, nice and easy. DRM is ineffective because the pirate uploaders are competent enough to break it, and an average end user only downloads - rank and file pirates wouldn't make their own releases even if DRM never existed and making them was easy.
Cider9986 2mo ago
But why would this larger percentage of people rip it themselves when the hardcore pirate already did it and made it accessible[1]? [1] https://fmhy.net/video#streaming-sites https://fmhy.net/video#streaming-sites
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- DrewADesign 2mo ago
  The average user would probably pay more for a different video streaming platform if their current one started requiring 4 or 5 more clicks per view. “Complex set of steps” for most people could involve finding a website that wasn’t explicitly advertised to them, using an interface that wasn’t AB tested into oblivion, and inexplicably having to “update their flash player” every single time they want to watch Barney Miller. Never mind bit torrent: you might as well ask them to build themselves a TV from scratch. They could figure it out— they aren’t (necessarily) dumb— but they really don’t want to have to figure it out. They just want it to work without friction.
inigyou 2mo ago
But it is easy to get the thing for free, because the free one doesn't have DRM.
dijksterhuis 2mo ago
> Drm is not targeted at the hardcore pirate, it's targeted at a potentially larger percentage of people who would be tempted to get the thing for free if it was easy spotify and netflix are both prime examples of making it easier for a larger population to access drm enabled content compared to pirated content (at the time they started getting popular anyway). with the advent of streaming services you no longer needed to download potentially dodgy files to your computer (viruses/malware), wait for the download to finish, realise they’re a dodgy video cam recording of the cinema screening, download another one etc. napster/limewire et. al were originally examples for the opposite case. pirating via those was super popular. there were fewer steps to access the media compared to going to a physical shop to buy a CD/DVD. (*) (*) i can’t remember when the itunes store came along. might have been after these services? or around the same-ish time?
tptacek 2mo ago
DRM also intensively targets the new-release window during which much of the returns on any piece of IP are made; the latency with which high-quality copies hit mainstream sites has monetary value as well.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
matheusmoreira 2mo ago
Piracy is a service problem. Copyright monopolists always defeat themselves with their obnoxious greed. Things were easy enough when Netflix had a complete catalog, now every studio wants to roll their own shitty streaming services in order to cut Netflix out. Result is a fragmented mess where you want to watch a great film but you have no idea where the hell it even is, and even if you find it you discover it doesn't work because your computer isn't locked down to their tastes, and even if you buy a TV appliance they stream you some shitty horribly compressied "high definition" video with artifacts in pure black frames, all on their homegrown laggy borderline unusable video players with zero features. Meanwhile the pirates offer Blu-Ray remuxes with commentary tracks, subtitles for every language, DRM free files that just work on your video player of choice. It's the sort of thing that makes me feel like a total moron for giving money to these corporations.
- bitwize 2mo ago
  Apple TV has a search function that allows you to find a film or series irrespectice of whatever service it's on, and launch the appropriate app to play it.
  - Aurornis 2mo ago
    Some times I read these mental gymnastics comments about piracy being easier and wonder if these people have actually tried to learn how to use something like an Apple TV. I think the services part they really dislike is just the part where your credit card gets charged when you click the buy or rent button. Doing all of the piracy stuff with VPNs and navigating torrent sites and getting a setup where you can play files on your TV is an order of magnitude more work.
    - vermilingua 2mo ago
      Sometimes I read these mental gymnastics comments about being leashed to half a dozen providers for “convenience” and wonder if these people have actually tried to learn how to use something like a NAS. I think the part they really dislike is the undermining of the moral superiority they claim by donating their money to corporations that contribute ~nothing to the actual evolution of culture. Inventing strawmans about how difficult it is to click one button in Jellyseer and have a max-quality, buffering free copy of what you want to watch in perpetuity is an order of magnitude more work than renting a poor-quality subset of the media that publishers consider it profitable to provide.
DrewADesign 2mo ago
“Locks only keep an honest man honest.” -Most people’s grandfather (I’m not saying these things are equal — just that this concept and the old saying share a perspective on securing things.)
tshaddox 2mo ago
I think that's also wrong. I think that the primary reason media publishers use DRM is not to prevent copyright infringement. It's really to exert power over the entire ecosystem and use that power to implement rules around content distribution and use that are much more restrictive than the actual copyright law itself.
- bitwize 2mo ago
  To copyright owners, there really is no difference. In many countries, notably not the USA, copyright is bound up with the broader concept of authors' rights, including the right to control whether, where, when, and how a work is exhibited. Rightsholders in the U.S. still believe in authors' rights from a moral standpoint; Jack Valenti wanted to outlaw VCRs because he was afraid of the rise of bootleg tapes, sure, but he also believed that movies were intended to be shown in theaters, and maybe only much later, licensed for television. Copyright and control over the distribution network were indistinguishable to him.
  - tshaddox 2mo ago
    Jack Valenti wanted to ban VCRs because he didn’t have more advanced DRM technology at that time. Publishers now have HDCP, so they don’t need to lobby the government to ban VCRs. They can just make sure to never license HDCP to any device manufactures that want to sell a recording device.
sandworm101 2mo ago
>> complex set of steps for doing so is enough to deter that target audience. Finding and playing what I want via netflix or amazon is far far more complex than downloading and playing a video from a pirate website. Want to watch the original non-upgraded Star Wars, good luck even finding it on any streaming service. But it is instantly available via any number of pirate sites.
amluto 2mo ago
I think there’s a difference between what people think they’re aiming at and what they actually aim at. Media DRM makes it harder for the person who can already legally access it to use it or share it in an unapproved manner. Or maybe to avoid ads, but that’s pretty rare. So DRMing a media file or stream has approximately no effect on the ability of a non-paying customer to get pirate it, because anyone searching for a pirated copy can find a DRM-free version anyway.
MattPalmer1086 2mo ago
But its all available easily with the DRM already stripped off by the hard core pirates. My best friend used to download pirated movies all the time - because it was easier than trying to get what he wanted by legal channels. It wasnt even the cost. When Netflix took off, he stopped pirating and paid the subscription.
xboxnolifes 2mo ago
While i agree, certain DRM (video streaming) has gotten to the point where its made getting a show legally, at 1080p+, more trouble than pirating. And not from lack of DRM. There's a certain good middle ground and I think we've passed it.

starrybreak 2mo ago

Users hate it, but DRM is vastly more powerful than that since you ultimately control user access. DRM - which all online services with user profiling automatically have - can also let you ban users, retarget users for ads, abuse, and other things beyond the basic function of running the software.

coretx 2mo ago
Such as bypassing parliament -the people responsible for managing your rights-. And subverting democracy and the rule of law too, by punishing you or otherwise manipulate you into desired behavior without going to court. Code is Law. DRM is violence.

conception 2mo ago

Yet Netflix is as profitable as Disney. Having loved through netflix and popcorn tv that wouldn’t be the case without drm.

bitwize 2mo ago

DRM does the job it's supposed to which is prevent casual piracy and increase the amount of effort it takes to pirate something. A thief could rob your house if they bumped your lock or just smashed your window. But that doesn't make door locks useless as those have large costs in terms of effort and risk. So the lock is still effective at preventing someone from just walking in and taking your stuff. It's the same with DRM. Without it, media would appear on piracy sites instantly upon release. DRM makes things harder to pirate, and pirated editions harder to get. And the DMCA makes defeating DRM a felony under U.S. law, so pirate networks are riskier to establish, driving piracy underground. It's doing the job it's supposed to do. It's not going anywhere.

perpetuallunch 2mo ago

Cheaper & easier - not by much. Australia blocks all the good torrent sites, so now I need a VPN, a reputable one. Also need terabytes of network connected storage, and usually I need more and more of it over time. Better and more networking equipment to buy and maintain. Media management and streaming software that works locally and remotely, to (maybe buy) and maintain. Or I can usage discount offers for the various streaming platforms, and pay for each one I want to watch something on from time to time. The streaming services also don’t come with who knows what malware like pirated media can. And a YouTube Premium subscription because you get ad free YouTube Music and ad free YouTube.

reactordev 2mo ago
It’s cat and mouse game. Australia blocks sites, sites move urls. If you don’t keep up, then they have caught you too. Streaming sites can just delete your purchases whenever they want to. Sony already has.
AussieWog93 2mo ago
It's only a DNS block fwiw. If you set your DNS to 1.1.1.1 or 8.8.8.8 everything works fine.
- perpetuallunch 2mo ago
  I recently realised even the build in iOS Private Relay gets around the Australian Government site blocks.
zarzavat 2mo ago
This is true for music because the labels decided that they would upload their catalogs to every streaming service. It's not true for movies, because the movie industry decided to sign exclusivity deals or make movies only available on their own platforms. Thus piracy is still the only reliable way to watch movies: you might get access to some subset of movies depending on which streaming service you subscribe to, but certainly not to all of them.
- 2mo ago

PunchyHamster 2mo ago

> What would happen if media were offered without DRM? Everything would be on a piracy site? It already is. But the media ARE offered without DRM. At least many video games, the big ones too. And somehow they sell just fine

VeninVidiaVicii 2mo ago

You wouldn’t steal a Claude!

mannanj 2mo ago

I often buy content to support the creators, then download it on torrent sites because the UI and experience is better. I can use whatever player I want, modify the screen size more and have no branding bloat (Amazon Prime! Youtube! Netflix! etc) and have a better, more focused, and even off-line friendly experience. It gets deleted, I move on with life. But man the experiences in branded players really sucks, and I wish it were better.

alfiedotwtf 2mo ago

> As a result, it's not just cheaper, but also easier and more reliable to steal media than it is to buy it legally. > > What would happen if media were offered without DRM? You kind of answered your own question. What you should have asked instead was - What would happen if media and payment was a straight forward offer we would have Netflix