6 ms·

I hate DRM too, and yet I love watching Netflix streaming. The fact is, if it's trivial to clone data to the point that regular users can do it (Napster, etc),

by lukifer 14y ago

I hate DRM too, and yet I love watching Netflix streaming. The fact is, if it's trivial to clone data to the point that regular users can do it (Napster, etc), the business model for online rental vanishes. The fact that DRM is always defeatable through hacks and analog loopholes doesn't matter: it just has to be good enough to deter the vast majority of users. I believe we need comprehensive IP reform across the board, including strong consumer protections and freedoms for "owned" content. But if the vendors are using DRM anyway (and they are), I'd rather they do so in a standards-based, interoperable way.

venomsnake 14y ago
Or we can outlaw DRM and put evolutionary pressure on the content providers and emasculate the gatekeepers.
- gph 14y ago
  Yes, and let's tar and feather the Tax Collectors!!!
- youngerdryas 14y ago
  How is outlawing something evolution?
  - venomsnake 14y ago
    Content provider insist "We need DRM to make money with out current business model" ... we say tough luck - innovate and evolve without DRM. It is the same way FIA tries to push innovation in F1 - by strategically forbidding cheesy technologies.
    - youngerdryas 14y ago
      But if you actually believe in evolution then the problem will take care of itself because someone will come along and eat their lunch.
      - venomsnake 14y ago
        I know that evolution works, but as recent bills in some states shows it can be "outlawed" with enough legislation. After all money can buy laws that are stratificating current big players and preventing new ideas from entering the marketplace. There was a recent opinion (should check techdirt which politic said it) that insisted on preventing disruptive for copyright holders technologies entering the market freely.
- PavlovsCat 14y ago
  And what would the result be? Everybody gets into bed with advertising, all the time? Why not simply make DRM super simple, kinda like adding an IMG tag to webpage is now? Then artists etc. can become the content providers, decide themselves what they want to offer and how much it would cost, and the audience in turn can decide wether that is fair or a ripoff. That'd be evolution worth talking about.. But if you just "outlaw DRM" (without having any ideas how to enforce copyright otherwise), what does that leave them with? Deals with third parties. The interwebs pompousness regarding this is just hilarious, considering all the middlemen the web is swarming with. What artist can do, or dares to do, without Twitter, Facebook, something like cafepress, maybe specific event websites etc.? Can you see my point? We haven't really steered them away from dependance on big money yet, and already they're getting entangled in a second layer. It's pathetic how easily that gets accepted. Everybody should have their own website, content creators should have two at least, and the only "content providers" we should ultimately need are ISP's and webhosts, the rest I would prefer to be open protocols. We need more payment options without being at the mercy of individual providers, and we need to grow the fuck up and realize that actually, sometimes it's okay to ask for a bit of money for something that cost someone days, weeks, months to create. We don't rob every shop we see out of spite just because the cash register is locked, and I do feel the interwebs sometimes has that attitude to virtual goods. Evolutionary pressure might as well mean extinction, so maybe think twice.
  - grhino 14y ago
    AFAIK, all popular DRM schemes have been circumvented. In principle, any DRM scheme can be circumvented unless the hardware that decrypts the content (and therefore holds the private key in memory) self-destructs when tampered with. This is a battle that content providers want to win. They can always find some plucky technologist saying that have an unbreakable DRM scheme. In the end, the question is whether DRM really needs to be there to keep honest people honest. The idea that content providers think that there is this some untapped boon of cash from high school, college age, and 20 somethings who are doing the bulk of the pirating. I do not want DRM to mean all media players have to be locked down proprietary software with the security enhanced only through obscurity. I don't mind there being a lock to remind honest people to be honest, but I don't like the idea of content providers bestowing upon a lucky few technology companies gatekeeper rights. It's not even in the interest of the content providers.
Benferhat 14y ago
> The fact is, if it's trivial to clone data to the point that regular users can do it (Napster, etc) It's already trivial for regular users to download pirated data, even if only experts can get around the DRM to copy and release it[0] in the first place. Case in point: House of Cards. Fully, freely and easily available to Joe The Pirate Next Door Schmoe, now that some nerd (TRIC? BTN? ASAP? Immerse?) has gotten around Netflix's DRM. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warez_scene#Release_procedure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warez_scene#Release_procedure
- takluyver 14y ago
  The DRM is just one part of a strategy to make it just sufficiently unattractive to get a pirated version. Users can be worried about being caught, about their computer getting viruses, or just be put off by ugly websites and interfaces (Joe Schmoe isn't going to use get_iplayer at the command line). If they can make pirated versions look shady and illicit, lots of people will be willing to pay a bit for an official version of the content. Part of that is implementing enough DRM that making a copy isn't as easy as right clicking the video and clicking 'save as'.
  - nnnnni 14y ago
    get_iplayer still works? I thought that it stopped working years ago!
    - ZeroGravitas 14y ago
      Still works, though development has moved on from the original guy. Relevant bit from the new projet's website: "DRM get_iplayer does not circumvent any digital rights management security (see the BBC’s website on how to do that with the Windows-only DRM content they provide). get_iplayer does not circumvent any effective technological measures. The BBC does not implement any such measures. They use RTMP which is a streaming protocol now publicly published by Adobe. Sometimes they use RTMP ‘SWF verification’ which has proven to be ineffective in its current BBC implementation (flvstreamer cannot handle such verification requests so the stream is dropped and is then automatically resumed). The iPhone streams are also unprotected and use plain progressive download HTTP protocol. The WMA and realaudio streams and likewise unprotected. The BBC may at some point choose to effectively protect their streams with DRM or some ‘effective technological measure’ in which case get_iplayer will no longer be a useful tool for those streams. The BBC do implement DRM on their Adobe Air downloadable files and therefore get_iplayer is not useful with those. The BBC iPlayer TV only works in the UK so that they can limit the reach of their output to UK TV Licence fee payers who fund iPlayer (although legally you do not require a licence to watch non-live iPlayer output)." http://www.infradead.org/get_iplayer/html/get_iplayer.html http://www.infradead.org/get_iplayer/html/get_iplayer.html So all the many comment in this thread about what the BBC could not do without DRM seem to be contradicted by the facts. All the BBC need is something that claims to be DRM but really isn't.
betterunix 14y ago
"The fact is, if it's trivial to clone data to the point that regular users can do it (Napster, etc), the business model for online rental vanishes." Yes, and if it is trivial to send photos without first developing them, the business model for Kodak will vanish! Why, if it were trivial for people to move a carriage from point A to point B, the business model for buggy whip makers might vanish! Why should we be concerned about obsolete business models failing? Why should we be concerned about inherently bad business models, like "renting" bits, vanishing? We need to eliminate anti-circumvention laws as a first step, and then start talking about the possibility of completely upending the copyright system and replacing it with something that makes sense now that we have the Internet.
- JumpCrisscross 14y ago
  Obsolescence requires an old as well as a new. We have an old. But no clear new. Thus no obsolescence, just have a situation that doesn't work. >"Why should we be concerned about inherently bad business models...vanishing?" Because they may provide us something of value, e.g. content we'd rather have today than in ten years after some new distributor has figured his model out. DRM could be considered a patch job, but no more than, say, land rights. Some societies, e.g. the Native Americans, had no concept of land rights. The U.S. likes strictly defined personal property. The British, and many Nordic countries, preserve a public "right to roam" to uncultivated land, public or private [1]. The balance can vary from situation to situation, but takes experimentation and an open mind to find. That is why we should care - because this is an active debate playing out in the twin forums of politics and markets. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_roam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_roam
- TravisLS 14y ago
  I don't think it's a given that this model is inherently bad, obsolete, or evil. Unlike say, horses and buggies, it's not clear that there's a superior alternative here. In the case of video in particular, high quality content is still very expensive to produce. By removing the ability for movie / tv studios to make money from content, the likely outcome is we simply don't have big budget movies or high quality TV anymore. Aside from all of the reasons why the businesses might want their revenue streams to stay intact, most consumers probably want it as well.
mistercow 14y ago
>The fact is, if it's trivial to clone data to the point that regular users can do it (Napster, etc), the business model for online rental vanishes. But it already is more trivial than Napster, so if that's your bar, the business model for online rentals and digital sales would already have vanished. And yet Netflix and iTunes seem to be doing OK.
wpietri 14y ago
I think Netflix proves the opposite point: If it's easy enough to pay for content, people will do it. There is nothing on Netflix I couldn't get via less legitimate means. And these days even technophobes know enough to type "downton abbey torrent" into Google. But they use Netflix because part of that $8/month goes to making it much easier, and a better viewing experience. Netflix having DRM doesn't help Netflix or the users one whit. It just increases costs and reduces adoption among those who favor non-targeted platforms. It's just a pacifier for a small number of corporate executives.

by lukifer 14y ago

venomsnake 14y ago

Or we can outlaw DRM and put evolutionary pressure on the content providers and emasculate the gatekeepers.

gph 14y ago
Yes, and let's tar and feather the Tax Collectors!!!
youngerdryas 14y ago
How is outlawing something evolution?
- venomsnake 14y ago
  Content provider insist "We need DRM to make money with out current business model" ... we say tough luck - innovate and evolve without DRM. It is the same way FIA tries to push innovation in F1 - by strategically forbidding cheesy technologies.
  - youngerdryas 14y ago
    But if you actually believe in evolution then the problem will take care of itself because someone will come along and eat their lunch.
    - venomsnake 14y ago
      I know that evolution works, but as recent bills in some states shows it can be "outlawed" with enough legislation. After all money can buy laws that are stratificating current big players and preventing new ideas from entering the marketplace. There was a recent opinion (should check techdirt which politic said it) that insisted on preventing disruptive for copyright holders technologies entering the market freely.
PavlovsCat 14y ago
And what would the result be? Everybody gets into bed with advertising, all the time? Why not simply make DRM super simple, kinda like adding an IMG tag to webpage is now? Then artists etc. can become the content providers, decide themselves what they want to offer and how much it would cost, and the audience in turn can decide wether that is fair or a ripoff. That'd be evolution worth talking about.. But if you just "outlaw DRM" (without having any ideas how to enforce copyright otherwise), what does that leave them with? Deals with third parties. The interwebs pompousness regarding this is just hilarious, considering all the middlemen the web is swarming with. What artist can do, or dares to do, without Twitter, Facebook, something like cafepress, maybe specific event websites etc.? Can you see my point? We haven't really steered them away from dependance on big money yet, and already they're getting entangled in a second layer. It's pathetic how easily that gets accepted. Everybody should have their own website, content creators should have two at least, and the only "content providers" we should ultimately need are ISP's and webhosts, the rest I would prefer to be open protocols. We need more payment options without being at the mercy of individual providers, and we need to grow the fuck up and realize that actually, sometimes it's okay to ask for a bit of money for something that cost someone days, weeks, months to create. We don't rob every shop we see out of spite just because the cash register is locked, and I do feel the interwebs sometimes has that attitude to virtual goods. Evolutionary pressure might as well mean extinction, so maybe think twice.
- grhino 14y ago
  AFAIK, all popular DRM schemes have been circumvented. In principle, any DRM scheme can be circumvented unless the hardware that decrypts the content (and therefore holds the private key in memory) self-destructs when tampered with. This is a battle that content providers want to win. They can always find some plucky technologist saying that have an unbreakable DRM scheme. In the end, the question is whether DRM really needs to be there to keep honest people honest. The idea that content providers think that there is this some untapped boon of cash from high school, college age, and 20 somethings who are doing the bulk of the pirating. I do not want DRM to mean all media players have to be locked down proprietary software with the security enhanced only through obscurity. I don't mind there being a lock to remind honest people to be honest, but I don't like the idea of content providers bestowing upon a lucky few technology companies gatekeeper rights. It's not even in the interest of the content providers.

Benferhat 14y ago

> The fact is, if it's trivial to clone data to the point that regular users can do it (Napster, etc) It's already trivial for regular users to download pirated data, even if only experts can get around the DRM to copy and release it[0] in the first place. Case in point: House of Cards. Fully, freely and easily available to Joe The Pirate Next Door Schmoe, now that some nerd (TRIC? BTN? ASAP? Immerse?) has gotten around Netflix's DRM. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warez_scene#Release_procedure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warez_scene#Release_procedure

takluyver 14y ago
The DRM is just one part of a strategy to make it just sufficiently unattractive to get a pirated version. Users can be worried about being caught, about their computer getting viruses, or just be put off by ugly websites and interfaces (Joe Schmoe isn't going to use get_iplayer at the command line). If they can make pirated versions look shady and illicit, lots of people will be willing to pay a bit for an official version of the content. Part of that is implementing enough DRM that making a copy isn't as easy as right clicking the video and clicking 'save as'.
- nnnnni 14y ago
  get_iplayer still works? I thought that it stopped working years ago!
  - ZeroGravitas 14y ago
    Still works, though development has moved on from the original guy. Relevant bit from the new projet's website: "DRM get_iplayer does not circumvent any digital rights management security (see the BBC’s website on how to do that with the Windows-only DRM content they provide). get_iplayer does not circumvent any effective technological measures. The BBC does not implement any such measures. They use RTMP which is a streaming protocol now publicly published by Adobe. Sometimes they use RTMP ‘SWF verification’ which has proven to be ineffective in its current BBC implementation (flvstreamer cannot handle such verification requests so the stream is dropped and is then automatically resumed). The iPhone streams are also unprotected and use plain progressive download HTTP protocol. The WMA and realaudio streams and likewise unprotected. The BBC may at some point choose to effectively protect their streams with DRM or some ‘effective technological measure’ in which case get_iplayer will no longer be a useful tool for those streams. The BBC do implement DRM on their Adobe Air downloadable files and therefore get_iplayer is not useful with those. The BBC iPlayer TV only works in the UK so that they can limit the reach of their output to UK TV Licence fee payers who fund iPlayer (although legally you do not require a licence to watch non-live iPlayer output)." http://www.infradead.org/get_iplayer/html/get_iplayer.html http://www.infradead.org/get_iplayer/html/get_iplayer.html So all the many comment in this thread about what the BBC could not do without DRM seem to be contradicted by the facts. All the BBC need is something that claims to be DRM but really isn't.

betterunix 14y ago

"The fact is, if it's trivial to clone data to the point that regular users can do it (Napster, etc), the business model for online rental vanishes." Yes, and if it is trivial to send photos without first developing them, the business model for Kodak will vanish! Why, if it were trivial for people to move a carriage from point A to point B, the business model for buggy whip makers might vanish! Why should we be concerned about obsolete business models failing? Why should we be concerned about inherently bad business models, like "renting" bits, vanishing? We need to eliminate anti-circumvention laws as a first step, and then start talking about the possibility of completely upending the copyright system and replacing it with something that makes sense now that we have the Internet.

JumpCrisscross 14y ago
Obsolescence requires an old as well as a new. We have an old. But no clear new. Thus no obsolescence, just have a situation that doesn't work. >"Why should we be concerned about inherently bad business models...vanishing?" Because they may provide us something of value, e.g. content we'd rather have today than in ten years after some new distributor has figured his model out. DRM could be considered a patch job, but no more than, say, land rights. Some societies, e.g. the Native Americans, had no concept of land rights. The U.S. likes strictly defined personal property. The British, and many Nordic countries, preserve a public "right to roam" to uncultivated land, public or private [1]. The balance can vary from situation to situation, but takes experimentation and an open mind to find. That is why we should care - because this is an active debate playing out in the twin forums of politics and markets. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_roam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_roam
TravisLS 14y ago
I don't think it's a given that this model is inherently bad, obsolete, or evil. Unlike say, horses and buggies, it's not clear that there's a superior alternative here. In the case of video in particular, high quality content is still very expensive to produce. By removing the ability for movie / tv studios to make money from content, the likely outcome is we simply don't have big budget movies or high quality TV anymore. Aside from all of the reasons why the businesses might want their revenue streams to stay intact, most consumers probably want it as well.

mistercow 14y ago

>The fact is, if it's trivial to clone data to the point that regular users can do it (Napster, etc), the business model for online rental vanishes. But it already is more trivial than Napster, so if that's your bar, the business model for online rentals and digital sales would already have vanished. And yet Netflix and iTunes seem to be doing OK.

wpietri 14y ago

I think Netflix proves the opposite point: If it's easy enough to pay for content, people will do it. There is nothing on Netflix I couldn't get via less legitimate means. And these days even technophobes know enough to type "downton abbey torrent" into Google. But they use Netflix because part of that $8/month goes to making it much easier, and a better viewing experience. Netflix having DRM doesn't help Netflix or the users one whit. It just increases costs and reduces adoption among those who favor non-targeted platforms. It's just a pacifier for a small number of corporate executives.