4 ms·
AFAIK, all popular DRM schemes have been circumvented. In principle, any DRM scheme can be circumvented unless the hardware that decrypts the content (and there
by 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 agoThen 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 agoThat 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 agoAnd 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 agoI didn't say it wasn't a choice; but it's also a privilege, and I find that important to point out. As for the UN declaration, it's a nice document, but it's also very inconsistent, as most declarations which include positive rights usually are. Privilege is if you use my stuff without permission and I shrug it off. It's not your stuff; nobody hacked into your computer to get it. You gave or sold it to someone else. Besides, property is a concept created for the allocation of scarce things. It makes no sense when applied to effectively unlimited elements.
- PavlovsCat 14y agoInconsistent or not, it is very clearly called a right. That there is another, conflicting right, doesn't make either of those a privilege. And if I, by default, have all rights to it, then it's also my right to give those up, and giving the things away -- which is an explicit decision, not determined by "can it be copied" -- then if anything it's a privilege to peruse them, since contrary to the copyright protection, nobody is entitled to me giving it up upon creation. property is a concept created for the allocation of scarce things No. Copyright includes things such as me having a say wether my photo will be used to advertise rat poison or neonazis, or someone else claiming they made them etc. (if I can prove I am the author, they at least have to cease from that claim). I guess that's covered with "moral interests", not sure; but my point was simply this: that I give stuff away is a free choice. If any photo I took would automatically belong to anyone no matter how they got at it to do whatever they want with it, I would not take any more photos. In my case nothing of value would be lost, but that's not the point.
- lukifer 14y agoAfaik, Netflix Silverlight and FairPlay for video have not been circumvented (correct me if I'm wrong, I'd love to liberate my iTunes purchases).