3 ms·

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

by 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.

by yk 13y ago

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.