4 ms·

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 bec

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 13y 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 13y 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 13y 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 13y ago
  I think you're missing my point. My freedom to not give them money isn't about being able to easily copy their media. It's about my freedom to not consume that media whatsoever. To put it in language that's less easily interpreted as being pro-DRM: If HBO wants to use digital rights management to sink Game of Thrones into a cultural black hole, I'm more than happy to oblige them on that one.
  - nullc 13y ago
    > my freedom to not consume that media whatsoever But this freedom is bounded in that it comes with a cost. If you don't consume their output then there is a segment of popular culture which you are excluded from... the social distance between you and friends and family are increased. It might be a black hole from your perspective, but lots and lots of the people around you are opting-in. There are ways around this— there are many more things that its possible to have in common with others, and its possible to leverage your ignorance to create conversation— I'd rather hear a summary of a TV series from a friend than see the series. But it isn't as simple or free of a choice as you seem to be making it out to be.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
shkkmo 13y ago
First they DRM'd the videos, and I did not speak out— Because I don't watch TV and Movies. Then they DRM'd the music, and I did not speak out— Because I have a nice vinyl collection. Then they DRM'd the ebooks, and I did not speak out— Because I still use public libraries. Then they DRM'd the news, and I did not speak out— Because I don't read the news. Then they DRM'd me.
- mpyne 13y ago
  The reason the slippery slope is considered a fallacy is because if you're not careful about the validity of your logic, it would apply equally well to any ill. That would therefore mean that all bad things must be stopped with full force, because "First they $VERBd the $GROUP[i], and I did not speak out" would apply for the union of VERBs, GROUPs, and possible {i}s. E.g. in this case you literally end with "Then they DRM'd me". Are you seriously trying to claim that the end state of Mozilla supporting EME is that DRM is used to physically hurt people?
  - shkkmo 13y ago
    >Are you seriously trying to claim that the end state of Mozilla supporting EME is that DRM is used to physically hurt people? Of course not. That last line is clearly meant to be absurd. I wanted break the slippery slope argument. What I was trying to do was poke fun at the idea that DRM is okay as long it doesn't affect you directly. You should speak out against DRM, not because it is a slippery slope, but because it is wrong and it hurts people. The reason I think you should speak out against interning socialists is because it is wrong, not because of the slippery slope that it entails.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Fair enough. Poe's Law and all, it's hard to tell nowadays. :)
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
Paul-ish 13y ago
I care when it is included in the browser. DRM usually needs to fingerprint the device it is on. DRM is essentially introducing another vector for track you, even if you don't consume DRM protected content.

spacelizard 13y 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 13y 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 13y 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 13y ago
I think you're missing my point. My freedom to not give them money isn't about being able to easily copy their media. It's about my freedom to not consume that media whatsoever. To put it in language that's less easily interpreted as being pro-DRM: If HBO wants to use digital rights management to sink Game of Thrones into a cultural black hole, I'm more than happy to oblige them on that one.
- nullc 13y ago
  > my freedom to not consume that media whatsoever But this freedom is bounded in that it comes with a cost. If you don't consume their output then there is a segment of popular culture which you are excluded from... the social distance between you and friends and family are increased. It might be a black hole from your perspective, but lots and lots of the people around you are opting-in. There are ways around this— there are many more things that its possible to have in common with others, and its possible to leverage your ignorance to create conversation— I'd rather hear a summary of a TV series from a friend than see the series. But it isn't as simple or free of a choice as you seem to be making it out to be.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]

shkkmo 13y ago

First they DRM'd the videos, and I did not speak out— Because I don't watch TV and Movies. Then they DRM'd the music, and I did not speak out— Because I have a nice vinyl collection. Then they DRM'd the ebooks, and I did not speak out— Because I still use public libraries. Then they DRM'd the news, and I did not speak out— Because I don't read the news. Then they DRM'd me.

mpyne 13y ago
The reason the slippery slope is considered a fallacy is because if you're not careful about the validity of your logic, it would apply equally well to any ill. That would therefore mean that all bad things must be stopped with full force, because "First they $VERBd the $GROUP[i], and I did not speak out" would apply for the union of VERBs, GROUPs, and possible {i}s. E.g. in this case you literally end with "Then they DRM'd me". Are you seriously trying to claim that the end state of Mozilla supporting EME is that DRM is used to physically hurt people?
- shkkmo 13y ago
  >Are you seriously trying to claim that the end state of Mozilla supporting EME is that DRM is used to physically hurt people? Of course not. That last line is clearly meant to be absurd. I wanted break the slippery slope argument. What I was trying to do was poke fun at the idea that DRM is okay as long it doesn't affect you directly. You should speak out against DRM, not because it is a slippery slope, but because it is wrong and it hurts people. The reason I think you should speak out against interning socialists is because it is wrong, not because of the slippery slope that it entails.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Fair enough. Poe's Law and all, it's hard to tell nowadays. :)
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

Paul-ish 13y ago

I care when it is included in the browser. DRM usually needs to fingerprint the device it is on. DRM is essentially introducing another vector for track you, even if you don't consume DRM protected content.