4 ms·

(reply to below). Only if you consider DRM unethical. I don't consider non-free software, or DRM software unethical. I consider it shitty, and I am free to igno

(reply to below). Only if you consider DRM unethical. I don't consider non-free software, or DRM software unethical. I consider it shitty, and I am free to ignore it if I want. You don't have any "right" to non-DRMed content. I say this as a person who hates DRM and who spent most of my youth cracking copyright disk protection on 8 and 16-bit software. I don't have a single atom of love for it, but software producers are perfectly within their rights to do it and you are perfectly within your rights not to buy or consume their content.

shmerl 14y ago
I consider DRM unethical, but even besides that, it by definition implies privacy and security risk. You can't have safe DRM. I'd say producers aren't within their moral rights to push preemptive policing on people. That's where the unethical aspect comes in.
- Silhouette 14y ago
  You can't have safe DRM. I'd say producers aren't within their moral rights to push preemptive policing on people. It's hardly preemptive. People have been illegally ripping off content since forever, and they've been doing it on a potentially business-destroying scale since the Internet became popular. The official law enforcement bodies conveniently sidestep the whole issue by making copyright infringement a civil rather than criminal offence in most places, which also transfers the burden of enforcement onto the copyright holder in most cases, and then the costs of actually bringing a case to court over someone ripping off a $10 movie are prohibitive. The normal mechanisms that are supposed to protect someone who has been wronged under the law have failed. The content producers are now saying that if you want their content, you have to let them include technical measures to protect their rights because the legal system mostly doesn't. What other choice has society left them? You are still free not to consume their content and the accompanying DRM by buying something else... assuming, of course, that there is a viable business model to produce that "something else" instead.
  - shmerl 14y ago
    It's preemptive in a sense of saying "you are criminal (possibly), that's why we put spyware on your computer, lest you try copying our stuff". It is unethical and overreaching. Yes, piracy is a problem for content owners. Preemptive policing though is not a solution. What other choice has society left them? Treat customers with respect. That's the only sensible choice they have. It means no DRM. They don't do it, so they shouldn't be surprised that not many customers respect them.
    - Silhouette 14y ago
      I don't think associating DRM in general with terms like "spyware" is particularly helpful. There is some overlap, of course, but fundamentally most DRM schemes don't install the kinds of keyloggers and such that are usually associated with spyware. That said, I have no problem with regulating what DRM schemes can do by law, so that it's clear that doing actual spyware-like things is illegal, or perhaps requiring that all negative effects of DRM schemes must be prominently disclosed before purchasing, with a mandatory security warning that will discourage consumers from buying. More generally, if you consider DRM to be preemptive policing and not a solution to content piracy, what do you propose instead? If you've got a better idea that would actually work, I'm sure the content industry would love to know about it. Right now, there aren't a lot of those around. Edit in response to your extra comment, "Treat customers with respect. That's the only sensible choice they have.": As with most things in life, respect is earned. Sadly, society as a whole has proven beyond much doubt that it can't collectively be trusted in this respect and a large proportion of people will pirate content if given a chance. People do that for a lot of different reasons, and understanding those reasons is probably key to finding a happier balance for all concerned. However, a significant number of people just see that they can rip off something they want without paying for it and without a high probability of being punished for it, and they do. It's odd, because most of those people wouldn't steal from a store or try to con their neighbour out of their savings. It's just become socially acceptable to a lot of people to pirate content, and I'm not sure that's a good thing at all.
      - shmerl 14y ago
Silhouette 14y ago
I don't have a single atom of love for it, but software producers are perfectly within their rights to do it and you are perfectly within your rights not to buy or consume their content. I think as a commercial reality that is true, but I also think that to counter abuse there needs to be some form of regulation for content providers who "sell" something with DRM and then mess up the DRM implementation so their customers can't enjoy that purchase fully. There have been far too many cases recently, particularly with software, where someone's DRM has gone way over the line and undermined the basic product. A consumer doesn't have to buy a DRM'd product, but if they do, they have a right that if they do buy it then they get what they paid for. A regulatory framework that guaranteed an automatic refund of a significant part of the purchase price for every incident/day that use was adversely affected, combined with compensation for both time/distress caused and any actual consequential losses, doesn't seem unreasonable. If that means that suppliers who insist on installing DRM along with their product and then break someone's computer by getting it wrong wind up paying out far more than they ever charged in the first place, well, perhaps they should consider themselves lucky that they aren't being criminally prosecuted for causing the same harm instead as any other malware distributor would be.

shmerl 14y ago

I consider DRM unethical, but even besides that, it by definition implies privacy and security risk. You can't have safe DRM. I'd say producers aren't within their moral rights to push preemptive policing on people. That's where the unethical aspect comes in.

Silhouette 14y ago
You can't have safe DRM. I'd say producers aren't within their moral rights to push preemptive policing on people. It's hardly preemptive. People have been illegally ripping off content since forever, and they've been doing it on a potentially business-destroying scale since the Internet became popular. The official law enforcement bodies conveniently sidestep the whole issue by making copyright infringement a civil rather than criminal offence in most places, which also transfers the burden of enforcement onto the copyright holder in most cases, and then the costs of actually bringing a case to court over someone ripping off a $10 movie are prohibitive. The normal mechanisms that are supposed to protect someone who has been wronged under the law have failed. The content producers are now saying that if you want their content, you have to let them include technical measures to protect their rights because the legal system mostly doesn't. What other choice has society left them? You are still free not to consume their content and the accompanying DRM by buying something else... assuming, of course, that there is a viable business model to produce that "something else" instead.
- shmerl 14y ago
  It's preemptive in a sense of saying "you are criminal (possibly), that's why we put spyware on your computer, lest you try copying our stuff". It is unethical and overreaching. Yes, piracy is a problem for content owners. Preemptive policing though is not a solution. What other choice has society left them? Treat customers with respect. That's the only sensible choice they have. It means no DRM. They don't do it, so they shouldn't be surprised that not many customers respect them.
  - Silhouette 14y ago
    I don't think associating DRM in general with terms like "spyware" is particularly helpful. There is some overlap, of course, but fundamentally most DRM schemes don't install the kinds of keyloggers and such that are usually associated with spyware. That said, I have no problem with regulating what DRM schemes can do by law, so that it's clear that doing actual spyware-like things is illegal, or perhaps requiring that all negative effects of DRM schemes must be prominently disclosed before purchasing, with a mandatory security warning that will discourage consumers from buying. More generally, if you consider DRM to be preemptive policing and not a solution to content piracy, what do you propose instead? If you've got a better idea that would actually work, I'm sure the content industry would love to know about it. Right now, there aren't a lot of those around. Edit in response to your extra comment, "Treat customers with respect. That's the only sensible choice they have.": As with most things in life, respect is earned. Sadly, society as a whole has proven beyond much doubt that it can't collectively be trusted in this respect and a large proportion of people will pirate content if given a chance. People do that for a lot of different reasons, and understanding those reasons is probably key to finding a happier balance for all concerned. However, a significant number of people just see that they can rip off something they want without paying for it and without a high probability of being punished for it, and they do. It's odd, because most of those people wouldn't steal from a store or try to con their neighbour out of their savings. It's just become socially acceptable to a lot of people to pirate content, and I'm not sure that's a good thing at all.
    - shmerl 14y ago

Silhouette 14y ago

I don't have a single atom of love for it, but software producers are perfectly within their rights to do it and you are perfectly within your rights not to buy or consume their content. I think as a commercial reality that is true, but I also think that to counter abuse there needs to be some form of regulation for content providers who "sell" something with DRM and then mess up the DRM implementation so their customers can't enjoy that purchase fully. There have been far too many cases recently, particularly with software, where someone's DRM has gone way over the line and undermined the basic product. A consumer doesn't have to buy a DRM'd product, but if they do, they have a right that if they do buy it then they get what they paid for. A regulatory framework that guaranteed an automatic refund of a significant part of the purchase price for every incident/day that use was adversely affected, combined with compensation for both time/distress caused and any actual consequential losses, doesn't seem unreasonable. If that means that suppliers who insist on installing DRM along with their product and then break someone's computer by getting it wrong wind up paying out far more than they ever charged in the first place, well, perhaps they should consider themselves lucky that they aren't being criminally prosecuted for causing the same harm instead as any other malware distributor would be.