4 ms·

I have yet to see a single use-case where DRM has improved my experience. Like most people, I have seen countless cases where DRM has significantly degraded it.

I have yet to see a single use-case where DRM has improved my experience. Like most people, I have seen countless cases where DRM has significantly degraded it. Your statement is in dire need of things to back it up.

freehunter 13y ago
Netflix and Steam haven't improved your experience? Their very existence depends on DRM.
- ensignavenger 13y ago
  Phonographs and music CD's don't have DRM, yet they exist, and have been very profitable for studios. If DRM had never been invented, we would still probably have DVD's (whose DRM is so broken it may as well not exist) and Netflix.
  - freehunter 13y ago
    The discussion isn't "what exists", but rather "does DRM'd things improve the experience of the thing". Yes, there are DRM-free versions of things, or broken-DRM versions. Gog.com is a competitor to Steam that deals in DRM-free games, but their catalog isn't nearly as extensive because many studios won't put their games out there DRM-free. Steam freed us from CDs and DVDs that can get broken or lost, and freed us from typing in CD keys. That minor improvement was enough to make stores all but stop selling PC games. The question is, does Netflix streaming have a better experience than DVDs? I argue yes (as evidenced by the fact that Blockbuster is out of business and Netflix is booming). CDs don't have DRM but Spotify does. People use Spotify because it's more convenient. People don't use it because of the DRM, but studios are willing to trust it because it has DRM. The point I'm arguing against is "DRM has never improved the experience". I point to two things that exist because of DRM that are arguably more convenient and have a better UX than the DRM-free or broken-DRM versions.
    - josteink 13y ago
      I see you're getting downvoted, and I honestly think you've missed the point, but at least I'll give you a quick reply. > The point I'm arguing against is "DRM has never improved the experience". I point to two things that exist because of DRM You point to digital media. Digital media has existed as long as digital media has existed. DRM is a much newer thing. It has done nothing to enhance digital media, except restrict its ability to be enjoyed. That some short-sighted dinosaurs insist that they must have DRM to release digital media does in no way mean DRM improves or provides the experience of digital media. It just means that some people want to reduce the experience of something which was working fine in the first place as a prerequisite to ship. That's their decision and their call to make, but they have been proven wrong about that in the past and will be proven wrong again.
      - freehunter 13y ago
        What you say it true, but that's missing my point. Yes, I understand that DVDs and CDs and records and tapes have been around forever. But Netflix hasn't. Steam hasn't. They only became viable (in the studio's eyes) when DRM became possible. Digital distribution could have been done for a long time. It wasn't (officially) until there was some method of controlling it. That's the entirety of my point. DRM doesn't make digital media possible, it makes studios accepting of digital distribution, which is an improvement on user experience.
- Karunamon 13y ago
  Their very existence depends upon the continued good will of Big Content. DRM could disappear tomorrow and Netflix (not to mention thousands of other sites) would be better for it.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- pyrocat 13y ago
  You're conflating encryption with DRM. It's likely other people were using your open route, hogging your bandwidth and making your traffic slow, which is why when you went with WPA2 it got faster. It's impossible for encrypted traffic to be faster than plain text by definition.
talmand 13y ago
Well, except that without DRM you wouldn't have the content to watch in the first place. Legally that is. As long as DRM is a requirement for copyrighted content you will have DRM.

freehunter 13y ago

Netflix and Steam haven't improved your experience? Their very existence depends on DRM.

ensignavenger 13y ago
Phonographs and music CD's don't have DRM, yet they exist, and have been very profitable for studios. If DRM had never been invented, we would still probably have DVD's (whose DRM is so broken it may as well not exist) and Netflix.
- freehunter 13y ago
  The discussion isn't "what exists", but rather "does DRM'd things improve the experience of the thing". Yes, there are DRM-free versions of things, or broken-DRM versions. Gog.com is a competitor to Steam that deals in DRM-free games, but their catalog isn't nearly as extensive because many studios won't put their games out there DRM-free. Steam freed us from CDs and DVDs that can get broken or lost, and freed us from typing in CD keys. That minor improvement was enough to make stores all but stop selling PC games. The question is, does Netflix streaming have a better experience than DVDs? I argue yes (as evidenced by the fact that Blockbuster is out of business and Netflix is booming). CDs don't have DRM but Spotify does. People use Spotify because it's more convenient. People don't use it because of the DRM, but studios are willing to trust it because it has DRM. The point I'm arguing against is "DRM has never improved the experience". I point to two things that exist because of DRM that are arguably more convenient and have a better UX than the DRM-free or broken-DRM versions.
  - josteink 13y ago
    I see you're getting downvoted, and I honestly think you've missed the point, but at least I'll give you a quick reply. > The point I'm arguing against is "DRM has never improved the experience". I point to two things that exist because of DRM You point to digital media. Digital media has existed as long as digital media has existed. DRM is a much newer thing. It has done nothing to enhance digital media, except restrict its ability to be enjoyed. That some short-sighted dinosaurs insist that they must have DRM to release digital media does in no way mean DRM improves or provides the experience of digital media. It just means that some people want to reduce the experience of something which was working fine in the first place as a prerequisite to ship. That's their decision and their call to make, but they have been proven wrong about that in the past and will be proven wrong again.
    - freehunter 13y ago
      What you say it true, but that's missing my point. Yes, I understand that DVDs and CDs and records and tapes have been around forever. But Netflix hasn't. Steam hasn't. They only became viable (in the studio's eyes) when DRM became possible. Digital distribution could have been done for a long time. It wasn't (officially) until there was some method of controlling it. That's the entirety of my point. DRM doesn't make digital media possible, it makes studios accepting of digital distribution, which is an improvement on user experience.
Karunamon 13y ago
Their very existence depends upon the continued good will of Big Content. DRM could disappear tomorrow and Netflix (not to mention thousands of other sites) would be better for it.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

pyrocat 13y ago
You're conflating encryption with DRM. It's likely other people were using your open route, hogging your bandwidth and making your traffic slow, which is why when you went with WPA2 it got faster. It's impossible for encrypted traffic to be faster than plain text by definition.

talmand 13y ago

Well, except that without DRM you wouldn't have the content to watch in the first place. Legally that is. As long as DRM is a requirement for copyrighted content you will have DRM.