3 ms·

Why do people keep equating DRM with proprietary? Granted, it does allow for lock-in, but it depends on who's doing the lock-in. I don't think the case has been

Why do people keep equating DRM with proprietary? Granted, it does allow for lock-in, but it depends on who's doing the lock-in. I don't think the case has been sufficiently made that DRM is bad in and of itself. I am all in favour of open standards, no vendor lock in, I'm in favour of open source and free software. Let me reiterate just so there's no confusion, I use Ubuntu on the desktop, I use Gentoo on the server, I have an Nexus phone and tablet. However, I fail to see how DRM is bad in and of itself. I would prefer if all software was done in the open but I don't think proprietary software is evil or morally bad. I think it increases the likelihood of harm to the user somewhere down the line but I don't think the harm is inevitable. In the case of DRM I think the harm is even more remote, what do you think? Side note: what irks me is multiple formats ... Say I'm, an old timer, I've bought an album on vinyl, I figure that should give me some deduction when CD comes out or digital only or DVD-audio or whatever, I think making people purchase the same content on different formats over and over again at full price with no discount and not taking into account that you've purchased that album before is unfair!

okasaki 13y ago
Harm doesn't have to be inevitable for something to be morally bad. E.g. drunk driving, unprotected sex, and so on.
- hdctambien 13y ago
  Unprotected sex is morally bad?
  - kijin 13y ago
    If you know that there is a risk of harm -- STD or an unwanted pregnancy -- and fail to take reasonable steps to reduce that risk, I suppose that counts as "bad". Example of unprotected sex that is probably OK: (both partners are STD-free) && (they are using a different method of birth control || they actually want a baby || it is impossible for a pregnancy to occur because they're same-sex or one of them is sterile)
nwh 13y ago
> Why do people keep equating DRM with proprietary? DRM must be proprietary. The whole point of DRM is that only the authorized devices get the "special source". DRM is closed source, obfuscated binaries, tricks and traps to drop people reverse engineering them. If it was open source then the functionality could be duplicated or the special sauce modified for any use. There's no other conceivable way DRM can function.
- m_mueller 13y ago
  I think it depends on what you define as DRM. If you see DRM as simply and securely distributing read access permission, then there's no reason this can't be achieved with OSS. If however the provider doesn't accept the fact that the permission to read is equal to the permission to copy something, then you're in trouble. The formula could be so simple - distribute your content on high bandwidth, highly available networks, give access on a per-device or per-account basis (and charge money for that access), thus enable people to watch anything they want instantly and safely, and you gain back pretty much all of the customers you've lost to piracy, that would have bought your physical media before. Restricting copies is mostly useless since there are copies floating around of anything anyways. There's always been means to get content illegally, it's just now that the illegal way has become easier to use, or more importantly, the only way to get the content in a reasonable timeframe in the first place. Letting most of the world wait years between release in the US and the availability to stream and then wondering why they dare to download it anyways, is just not a sane way to go about and it has nothing to do with using DRM or not.
  - nwh 13y ago
    What you're talking about is not DRM, much the opposite. > If you see DRM as simply and securely distributing read access permission, then there's no reason this can't be achieved with OSS. There is. If it's open source, the special sauce can't be special any more. The entire mechanism of DRM would be broken.
    - m_mueller 13y ago
      What I propose as DRM is nothing but an ACL. This is available with OSS just as you can have file permissions in linux. The reason today's DRM needs 'special sauce' is always because of restricting the copying of content they want to sell people - which is pointless IMO.

okasaki 13y ago

Harm doesn't have to be inevitable for something to be morally bad. E.g. drunk driving, unprotected sex, and so on.

hdctambien 13y ago
Unprotected sex is morally bad?
- kijin 13y ago
  If you know that there is a risk of harm -- STD or an unwanted pregnancy -- and fail to take reasonable steps to reduce that risk, I suppose that counts as "bad". Example of unprotected sex that is probably OK: (both partners are STD-free) && (they are using a different method of birth control || they actually want a baby || it is impossible for a pregnancy to occur because they're same-sex or one of them is sterile)

nwh 13y ago

> Why do people keep equating DRM with proprietary? DRM must be proprietary. The whole point of DRM is that only the authorized devices get the "special source". DRM is closed source, obfuscated binaries, tricks and traps to drop people reverse engineering them. If it was open source then the functionality could be duplicated or the special sauce modified for any use. There's no other conceivable way DRM can function.

m_mueller 13y ago
I think it depends on what you define as DRM. If you see DRM as simply and securely distributing read access permission, then there's no reason this can't be achieved with OSS. If however the provider doesn't accept the fact that the permission to read is equal to the permission to copy something, then you're in trouble. The formula could be so simple - distribute your content on high bandwidth, highly available networks, give access on a per-device or per-account basis (and charge money for that access), thus enable people to watch anything they want instantly and safely, and you gain back pretty much all of the customers you've lost to piracy, that would have bought your physical media before. Restricting copies is mostly useless since there are copies floating around of anything anyways. There's always been means to get content illegally, it's just now that the illegal way has become easier to use, or more importantly, the only way to get the content in a reasonable timeframe in the first place. Letting most of the world wait years between release in the US and the availability to stream and then wondering why they dare to download it anyways, is just not a sane way to go about and it has nothing to do with using DRM or not.
- nwh 13y ago
  What you're talking about is not DRM, much the opposite. > If you see DRM as simply and securely distributing read access permission, then there's no reason this can't be achieved with OSS. There is. If it's open source, the special sauce can't be special any more. The entire mechanism of DRM would be broken.
  - m_mueller 13y ago
    What I propose as DRM is nothing but an ACL. This is available with OSS just as you can have file permissions in linux. The reason today's DRM needs 'special sauce' is always because of restricting the copying of content they want to sell people - which is pointless IMO.