5 ms·

Without responding to your specific point, many people say "people who disagree with me (just) don't understand," but in reality the people who disagree often h

Without responding to your specific point, many people say "people who disagree with me (just) don't understand," but in reality the people who disagree often have just as good an understanding of the basic facts, yet disagree anyway.

npsimons 12y ago
but in reality the people who disagree often have just as good an understanding of the basic facts, yet disagree anyway. Really? I hate to be the elitist asshole, but if people don't understand that making bits uncopyable is not in the realm of reality, then I would argue they don't understand basic facts. See Schneier's commentary on "making water not wet" and copy protection, eg https://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0108.html#7 https://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0108.html#7
- streptomycin 12y ago
  It's impossible to make bits uncopyable, but it's easy to make them less convenient to copy. That's the purpose of DRM.
  - sroerick 12y ago
    It's not easy to make them less convienient to copy. It is easy to outlaw it, though.
bunderbunder 12y ago
Put me in that camp. I did care about DRM at one time, but that's tapered off quite a bit over the years. A lot of this probably correlates with my having become something of a cord cutter. It's hard to get worked up over concerns that someone might be threatening my "right" to disposable content that I've decided I don't need, usually don't want, and tend to think of as having a net negative impact on my quality of life. Perhaps it's my jaded brand of libertarianism showing: I'm inclined to say that media companies have just as much a right to make it hard for me to give them money as I have a right to continue not giving them money. Ironically enough, we're actually working toward a common cause. (edit: A response would be more edifying than a drive-by downvote, y'all.)
- spacelizard 12y ago
  You could argue that most of the works available on Netflix are pretty superfluous, but this isn't really a reason to dismiss the reasons not to use DRM. For one, the issue extends to much more media than just video. Ebook DRM is way more scary. In the case of any DRM though, it just so happens that not using their services is probably the only reasonable solution. So you're spot-on in that regard. The very existence of DRM is proof that these companies are on life support anyway.
  - stinkytaco 12y ago
    >Ebook DRM is way more scary. I'm curios about your use of the term "scary". First of all, is the assumption that ebooks are a more valid form of information transmission or artistic expression than video? If it's purely a question of information, then I'd argue that ebook DRM is largely irrelevant because the Internet has surpassed books as the primary information delivery tool (see: Wikipedia). [side note: I think it's curious that as our access to some content has become more restricted, are access to other content has exploded. A person would never have had access to something like the Wikipedia outside a library 20 years ago, now you can get it on your phone wherever you are]. And it's not like print books have gone away, nor like they will in the near future. Indeed, publishers are desperate to continue to sell them to you because they have more control over the distribution chain. This applies to video as well, for that matter.
- coldpie 12y ago
  > Perhaps it's my jaded brand of libertarianism showing The big catch is that it's an uneven equation because it's illegal to circumvent DRM due to the DMCA. If users could legally undo the DRM, I think you'd have a valid point: media companies are free to use whatever DRM they wish, and end-users and circumvent it if they are able. It would create an arms race which I believe the media companies would quickly lose. Instead, there's no legal weight in favor of the media companies, with no one standing up for end users' rights.
  - bunderbunder 12y ago
stcredzero 12y ago
many people say "people who disagree with me (just) don't understand," but in reality the people who disagree often have just as good an understanding of the basic facts I have yet to meet anyone who disagrees with the theory of evolution through natural selection who actually understands it well. Security, privacy, and cryptography are complicated subjects where the most potent effects are often epiphenomena. I don't have studies to back me up, but my impression from talking to most non technical people, is that they have only a hazy idea of what is involved.
- loup-vaillant 12y ago
  To further the point, when 2 people diagree about facts (they disagree less often about morality), then at least someone is doing it wrong. Might be you, might be me. Either way, contradictions are still false.
- bunderbunder 12y ago
  Did you just place scientific theories and political opinions in the same epistemological category? And here I thought postmodernism was dead.
  - stcredzero 12y ago
    No. Scientific theories with cryptography and security. Both of those are closely associated with politics, but have verifiable truth.

npsimons 12y ago

but in reality the people who disagree often have just as good an understanding of the basic facts, yet disagree anyway. Really? I hate to be the elitist asshole, but if people don't understand that making bits uncopyable is not in the realm of reality, then I would argue they don't understand basic facts. See Schneier's commentary on "making water not wet" and copy protection, eg https://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0108.html#7 https://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0108.html#7

streptomycin 12y ago
It's impossible to make bits uncopyable, but it's easy to make them less convenient to copy. That's the purpose of DRM.
- sroerick 12y ago
  It's not easy to make them less convienient to copy. It is easy to outlaw it, though.

bunderbunder 12y ago

Put me in that camp. I did care about DRM at one time, but that's tapered off quite a bit over the years. A lot of this probably correlates with my having become something of a cord cutter. It's hard to get worked up over concerns that someone might be threatening my "right" to disposable content that I've decided I don't need, usually don't want, and tend to think of as having a net negative impact on my quality of life. Perhaps it's my jaded brand of libertarianism showing: I'm inclined to say that media companies have just as much a right to make it hard for me to give them money as I have a right to continue not giving them money. Ironically enough, we're actually working toward a common cause. (edit: A response would be more edifying than a drive-by downvote, y'all.)

spacelizard 12y ago
You could argue that most of the works available on Netflix are pretty superfluous, but this isn't really a reason to dismiss the reasons not to use DRM. For one, the issue extends to much more media than just video. Ebook DRM is way more scary. In the case of any DRM though, it just so happens that not using their services is probably the only reasonable solution. So you're spot-on in that regard. The very existence of DRM is proof that these companies are on life support anyway.
- stinkytaco 12y ago
  >Ebook DRM is way more scary. I'm curios about your use of the term "scary". First of all, is the assumption that ebooks are a more valid form of information transmission or artistic expression than video? If it's purely a question of information, then I'd argue that ebook DRM is largely irrelevant because the Internet has surpassed books as the primary information delivery tool (see: Wikipedia). [side note: I think it's curious that as our access to some content has become more restricted, are access to other content has exploded. A person would never have had access to something like the Wikipedia outside a library 20 years ago, now you can get it on your phone wherever you are]. And it's not like print books have gone away, nor like they will in the near future. Indeed, publishers are desperate to continue to sell them to you because they have more control over the distribution chain. This applies to video as well, for that matter.
coldpie 12y ago
> Perhaps it's my jaded brand of libertarianism showing The big catch is that it's an uneven equation because it's illegal to circumvent DRM due to the DMCA. If users could legally undo the DRM, I think you'd have a valid point: media companies are free to use whatever DRM they wish, and end-users and circumvent it if they are able. It would create an arms race which I believe the media companies would quickly lose. Instead, there's no legal weight in favor of the media companies, with no one standing up for end users' rights.
- bunderbunder 12y ago

stcredzero 12y ago

many people say "people who disagree with me (just) don't understand," but in reality the people who disagree often have just as good an understanding of the basic facts I have yet to meet anyone who disagrees with the theory of evolution through natural selection who actually understands it well. Security, privacy, and cryptography are complicated subjects where the most potent effects are often epiphenomena. I don't have studies to back me up, but my impression from talking to most non technical people, is that they have only a hazy idea of what is involved.

loup-vaillant 12y ago
To further the point, when 2 people diagree about facts (they disagree less often about morality), then at least someone is doing it wrong. Might be you, might be me. Either way, contradictions are still false.
bunderbunder 12y ago
Did you just place scientific theories and political opinions in the same epistemological category? And here I thought postmodernism was dead.
- stcredzero 12y ago
  No. Scientific theories with cryptography and security. Both of those are closely associated with politics, but have verifiable truth.