4 ms·

Philosophically this is utter hyperbole. Not being able to watch Arrested Development, or any content, under whatever circumstances you prefer does _not_ infrin

by alipang 13y ago

Philosophically this is utter hyperbole. Not being able to watch Arrested Development, or any content, under whatever circumstances you prefer does _not_ infringe on your freedom. A content creator has the right to stipulate whatever contractual conditions she prefers in order for you to partake of the content she's produced. If you don't like it, don't watch it. That being said, it's another matter of what actually constitutes good business, likely there are not really any business advantages to DRM. You could also definitely make a case for this idea as a good method of consumer empowerment. I'd just prefer if they didn't pretend that this has anything to do with "freedom" or liberty. Bad idea != attack on freedom

yk 13y ago
> Philosophically this is utter hyperbole. Not being able to watch Arrested Development, or any content, under whatever circumstances you prefer does _not_ infringe on your freedom. But not being allowed to control my own property is. And this is specifically what DRM is supposed to do, it prevents me to switch the bits in my RAM in the way I want to. And this was precisely my point, a important part of the standard depends on the precise meaning of freedom.
- endtime 13y ago
  I dislike DRM as much as the next HNer, but: >But not being allowed to control my own property is. And this is specifically what DRM is supposed to do, it prevents me to switch the bits in my RAM in the way I want to. Freedom doesn't mean the right to coerce others. If Netflix offers you a certain contract (you pay their fee and accept their DRM, and in return they stream you content) and you want to enforce a different contract on them without their consent (you refuse the DRM and they still stream you content), you are not advocating for freedom. You might as well say, "And this is specifically what murder laws do, they prevent me from projecting my bullets in the way I want to."
  - davorak 13y ago
    Normally when I think of the stereotypical disliked DRM scenario it is something along the lines of: A publisher offers to sell, I do mean sell not lease or contract, you an ebook. The ebook however comes with DRM. It is not legal, in the US, to break that DRM under most circumstances. This is case where DRM conflicts with the first-sales doctrine [1] and most people belief that they should be allowed to do pretty much whatever they want to their own property. Often publishes advertise something as selling property, but really only want to lease access rights, which is a different problem, false, dishonest or deceitful advertising. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
    - endtime 13y ago
      The context of this comment thread is Netflix, which no one can reasonably claim to believe to be selling, rather than streaming, content. In the case of sales, I absolutely agree with you that DRM sucks and is misleading (perhaps to the point of being unethical) to the uninformed. And personally (being informed), I don't buy anything with annoying DRM.
- talmand 13y ago
  That depends, watching something on Netflix does not grant you owner's rights in that case. So, DRM is a fair deal in that contract. As for a DVD that you purchased? That's a different situation. Personally, I agree with you on that one, but you agreed to the licensing terms that likely stipulate you do not own the content on the disc. Therefore, you get your DRM.
Ygg2 13y ago
It's not a direct attack, and theoretically what you said is true. However practically it won't be. The "networking effect" will come into motion. Look at it from consumer perspective. They can choose a web browser that supports their favorite service, for which they have subscription or use another open source and free browser that doesn't support their favorite service. People leave, which leads to reduced revenue for that browsers and its development stalls and slows, leading to further loss of interest and eventually its death and/or fading into obscurity. So open source and free browser, won't have much freedom other than to apply it however silly that sounds. So its not so much an attack on consumer freedom, but an attack on browser vendor's freedom. This if ofc moot if OSS browsers can introduce DRM into their core, which might be possible.
- Fice 13y ago
  DRM can't be implemented in FOSS because the ability to modify the software (and use the modified version) makes it possible to circumvent DRM restrictions (eg, insert some code to save the content after it is decoded). DRM always implies restricting user control over their own computers.
aclevernickname 13y ago
> Philosophically this is utter hyperbole. Not being able to watch Arrested Development, or any content, under whatever circumstances you prefer does _not_ infringe on your freedom. You are an impressive comedian. Kudos, to you, sir. For those not in the know, a common joke on Arrested Development was that a character would accuse someone of doing something, and would then do the exact thing they were accusing someone else of doing.

by alipang 13y ago

yk 13y ago

> Philosophically this is utter hyperbole. Not being able to watch Arrested Development, or any content, under whatever circumstances you prefer does _not_ infringe on your freedom. But not being allowed to control my own property is. And this is specifically what DRM is supposed to do, it prevents me to switch the bits in my RAM in the way I want to. And this was precisely my point, a important part of the standard depends on the precise meaning of freedom.

endtime 13y ago
I dislike DRM as much as the next HNer, but: >But not being allowed to control my own property is. And this is specifically what DRM is supposed to do, it prevents me to switch the bits in my RAM in the way I want to. Freedom doesn't mean the right to coerce others. If Netflix offers you a certain contract (you pay their fee and accept their DRM, and in return they stream you content) and you want to enforce a different contract on them without their consent (you refuse the DRM and they still stream you content), you are not advocating for freedom. You might as well say, "And this is specifically what murder laws do, they prevent me from projecting my bullets in the way I want to."
- davorak 13y ago
  Normally when I think of the stereotypical disliked DRM scenario it is something along the lines of: A publisher offers to sell, I do mean sell not lease or contract, you an ebook. The ebook however comes with DRM. It is not legal, in the US, to break that DRM under most circumstances. This is case where DRM conflicts with the first-sales doctrine [1] and most people belief that they should be allowed to do pretty much whatever they want to their own property. Often publishes advertise something as selling property, but really only want to lease access rights, which is a different problem, false, dishonest or deceitful advertising. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
  - endtime 13y ago
    The context of this comment thread is Netflix, which no one can reasonably claim to believe to be selling, rather than streaming, content. In the case of sales, I absolutely agree with you that DRM sucks and is misleading (perhaps to the point of being unethical) to the uninformed. And personally (being informed), I don't buy anything with annoying DRM.
talmand 13y ago
That depends, watching something on Netflix does not grant you owner's rights in that case. So, DRM is a fair deal in that contract. As for a DVD that you purchased? That's a different situation. Personally, I agree with you on that one, but you agreed to the licensing terms that likely stipulate you do not own the content on the disc. Therefore, you get your DRM.

Ygg2 13y ago

It's not a direct attack, and theoretically what you said is true. However practically it won't be. The "networking effect" will come into motion. Look at it from consumer perspective. They can choose a web browser that supports their favorite service, for which they have subscription or use another open source and free browser that doesn't support their favorite service. People leave, which leads to reduced revenue for that browsers and its development stalls and slows, leading to further loss of interest and eventually its death and/or fading into obscurity. So open source and free browser, won't have much freedom other than to apply it however silly that sounds. So its not so much an attack on consumer freedom, but an attack on browser vendor's freedom. This if ofc moot if OSS browsers can introduce DRM into their core, which might be possible.

Fice 13y ago
DRM can't be implemented in FOSS because the ability to modify the software (and use the modified version) makes it possible to circumvent DRM restrictions (eg, insert some code to save the content after it is decoded). DRM always implies restricting user control over their own computers.

aclevernickname 13y ago

> Philosophically this is utter hyperbole. Not being able to watch Arrested Development, or any content, under whatever circumstances you prefer does _not_ infringe on your freedom. You are an impressive comedian. Kudos, to you, sir. For those not in the know, a common joke on Arrested Development was that a character would accuse someone of doing something, and would then do the exact thing they were accusing someone else of doing.