3 ms·

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 webp

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.
- PavlovsCat 14y ago
  Then kill the content providers dead for all I care; let's talk about content creators instead. I mean, just consider the evil record companies: for every artist they exploited, there was an artist signing a contract. Are they just that stupid, do they feel forced by the uncertainty of their profession? Etc. But to just pretend content providers are sitting on something that ought to be free is bullshit. And I say this as someone who never took a cent for a photo or song I made. That was still my choice, and if you want to take that choice away from me you better start making photos and writing songs, because I'd be pouting.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    That was still my choice, and if you want to take that choice away from me you better start making photos and writing songs, because I'd be pouting. s/choice/privilege/g
    - PavlovsCat 14y ago
      And what is that even supposed to mean? Even if you had a point, and it was a privilege and not a right [1], that would simply mean I made a choice based on that privilege, it doesn't mean "that choice wasn't actually a choice, it was a privilege". You know, just because you can feed something into a computer doesn't mean a thinking human would buy it.. I might as well quote you and prepend "if (1 == 2)", there is endless derpy fun to be had there, but I'll pass. [1] http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml Article 27 (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. You might point out that those rights seem to contradict each other, and of course it leaves a lot of room for interpretation. But privilege? Privilege is if you use my stuff without permission and I shrug it off.
      - icebraining 14y ago

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.

PavlovsCat 14y ago
Then kill the content providers dead for all I care; let's talk about content creators instead. I mean, just consider the evil record companies: for every artist they exploited, there was an artist signing a contract. Are they just that stupid, do they feel forced by the uncertainty of their profession? Etc. But to just pretend content providers are sitting on something that ought to be free is bullshit. And I say this as someone who never took a cent for a photo or song I made. That was still my choice, and if you want to take that choice away from me you better start making photos and writing songs, because I'd be pouting.
- icebraining 14y ago
  That was still my choice, and if you want to take that choice away from me you better start making photos and writing songs, because I'd be pouting. s/choice/privilege/g
  - PavlovsCat 14y ago
    And what is that even supposed to mean? Even if you had a point, and it was a privilege and not a right [1], that would simply mean I made a choice based on that privilege, it doesn't mean "that choice wasn't actually a choice, it was a privilege". You know, just because you can feed something into a computer doesn't mean a thinking human would buy it.. I might as well quote you and prepend "if (1 == 2)", there is endless derpy fun to be had there, but I'll pass. [1] http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml Article 27 (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. You might point out that those rights seem to contradict each other, and of course it leaves a lot of room for interpretation. But privilege? Privilege is if you use my stuff without permission and I shrug it off.
    - icebraining 14y ago