6 ms·

> DRM are marketed to users (and the society, including politicians) and to artists as a way to prevent copies. Most engineers implementing DRMs think so too. A

by evv 12y ago

> DRM are marketed to users (and the society, including politicians) and to artists as a way to prevent copies. Most engineers implementing DRMs think so too. And all the discussions we've seen on HTML5 are around this. People have little arguments against this because it sounds morally good to help artist live of their creations. And to that end- that is the legitimate, marketable feature of DRM. As far as consumers are concerned, thats what it buys them- it allows the producers of the content to retain some control, live off of their art, and continue producing. How would content producers possibly deter copying without exerting control on the consumption hardware and software? The only answer there is standardized DRM. So HTML5 DRM seems to be the only solution which meets the consumer need (artists getting paid), and avoids the commercial control over your hardware and software.

shmerl 12y ago
> And to that end- that is the legitimate, marketable feature of DRM. Except that it's not legitimate. First of all as the post above implied, DRM simply doesn't advance the goal of "living off one's art" in any way. Or to put it in business terms, DRM doesn't increase sales (because it doesn't reduce piracy). I'd even say it decreases sales because some users avoid DRMed products and it as well increases piracy (because some pirates see breaking DRM as sport - i.e. they are more likely to direct their attention to a DRMed product to pirate it, rather than to a DRM-free one). Plus, it's not legitimate to employ overreaching preemptive policing justified by "need to live off one's art". Same way it's not legitimate to violate everyone's privacy by installing police cameras in people's houses as a preemptive measure against crime. > How would content producers possibly deter copying without exerting control on the consumption hardware and software? They can't deter it. They can reduce it (i.e. turn part of the pirates into paying customers). The way to do it is old and well known, yet many fail to remember it - treat customers with respect (and not as criminals by default). Establish more direct relation with your users, don't be a jerk, be user friendly and so on. People appreciate services which are explicitly DRM-free. On the other hand, paranoid attempts to "deter all copying" result in treating all customers as criminals by default, which turns many of them into pirates (i.e. serves exactly the opposite purpose). For some reason not being a jerk and being user friendly is a novel idea for many legacy publishers which they find hard to digest. Independent studios get it way better.
- kreeben 12y ago
  "Independent studios get it way better." On that note, may I suggest to those of you who are not already consuming comedy, the very best kind of comedy (the funny kind), from Louis CK to start doing so here: https://buy.louisck.net/ https://buy.louisck.net/
- evv 12y ago
  I'm not certain about this notion, but I bet the media executives have done the math: DRM probably results in more profit due to lowered casual piracy than decreased profit due to people pirating out of DRM-protest. And I wouldn't consider standardized DRM "overreaching preemptive policing". Compare that to the existing legal consumption options and you'll realize that this "policing" has been happening all along. Look, its great to say that everybody should be nice, but you've got to realize that this existing control is the backbone of the big media industry. Without DRM and the control it ensures, there is no way to ensure advertisments get watched. The ability to track the success of an ad would be lost. As it stands, media consumption is very easy for the industry to monitor and control. This is a huge industry with enormous power- why would they give that up over some upset rights activists? I'm all with you when it comes to indie studios. If the non-DRM party is going to win, its going to be with our wallets. I'd love to see more indie video and music. Maybe new non-DRM offerings will win out, as we are starting to see in the game industry. tldr: At the end of the day, if you want to consume mainstream media, you've got to put up with the mainstream consumption hardware/software.
  - shmerl 12y ago
    >I bet the media executives have done the math I get the feeling it's the opposite. They didn't do any math and do it out of inertia or because "everyone does it", or because of the completely other and crooked reasons (like the article linked in the thread explains). DRM doesn't affect casual or non causal piracy - this was already discussed at length in the past here. Because once DRM is broken, piracy occurs using those DRM-stripped copies. I.e. it takes one pirate to break it in order for others to never deal with it. Therefore it doesn't lower piracy rate. And I already explained how not using DRM can actually increase sales. And about DRM increasing piracy, there was an example from CD Projekt Red about their own game which they originally released with DRM (on disks) in parallel with DRM-free version (on GOG). And it was immediately pirated. But not the DRM-free version like you'd assume. It was the DRM-ed one! They said it was an interesting case study for them, which demonstrated that some pirates apparently break DRM for sport (i.e. who beats others to break DRM and pirate it). So it demonstrated for them that DRM boosted piracy. They never released games with DRM since, and advance the DRM-free distribution cause through their GOG service. By the way, music is largely available DRM-free for quite a while already. You can buy DRM-free files on Cdbaby, Amazon or tons of other music sites. Which again demonstrates the point that DRM-free distribution works just fine. > This is a huge industry with enormous power- why would they give that up over some upset rights activists? That's exactly the point. DRM is all about certain control (over the market for example), but not about piracy. Surely those who have that control want to retain it. But they lie to the public claiming that DRM is used for preventing piracy, while really it's used for control. It just adds to the reasons to always oppose it.
pjc50 12y ago
1) Artists getting paid is not a consumer need. It's an artist need. It's also a middleman need; take a look at what fraction actually goes to the "artists" some time. 2) DRM is commercial control over hardware and software, as it's only available with "blessed" software.
ds9 12y ago
"How would content producers possibly deter copying without exerting control on the consumption hardware and software?" Imagine this fictional scenario. Copyright owners sell audio and audio/video files for download. These are without ads, trailers, DRM or other restrictions; they're high quality, complete, available right away, and in popular codecs and formats. In other words, just like Pirate Bay, but legal, and prices are very low. What would happen if this were real? In the mad minds of the cartel, one person would buy each file, and copy for everyone else, and everyone would get the files from torrents, p2p etc.. In reality, if I'm paying Netflix rates for my files (divide say $15 over a month), and others can do the same, why would I copy it for them? They can just get their own. Moreover almost everyone would be willing to pay for their own, because they'd be getting a bargain, and on these terms they would be pleased to support the creators (who sometimes get some pennies from the middle-man companies).
- cwyers 12y ago
  If you're paying Netflix rates for ALL your TV and movies, the content industry goes bankrupt in a year. Netflix rates are possible because there's now a very low MARGINAL cost to additional copies of a movie or TV show, but if all copies of a movie or a TV show went for that, nothing would recoup its costs.
  - Zak 12y ago
    I'm skeptical. Most TV shows are broadcast free of charge and supported by ads and product placement. Paid streaming, digital downloads and DVD sales are supplemental revenue streams. Offering inexpensive, high-quality DRM-free downloads is compatible with making money from overlay ads and (where applicable) product placement. If the content industry doesn't take this path, I see piracy becoming more and more mainstream. My mother (65 years old, not very geeky) pirates TV shows so she can watch them on her tablet on a plane because her Netflix subscription doesn't provide a good solution for that. How long do you think it will be before she drops Netflix because The Pirate Bay has a better user experience?
    - thenomad 12y ago
higherpurpose 12y ago
So you're okay with the idea that the content owners should charge you every time you use the content for a different device, instead of "buy once, use everywhere"?
- dreamfactory2 12y ago
  It's never been buy once use everywhere. I can't play a book on a record player or put a CD into a tape machine. I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to use the same file on different devices but you need to recognise that your demand is the new method of distribution here that needs to make its case (and I think will do in the long run).
  - stormbrew 12y ago
    The current situation in digital distribution is more akin to only being able to play your record on a Phillips record player from 1976-1979 or your CD in a Sony CD player from 1990-1994. Or to read your book by the Patented Blacklight Color Lightbulb from 3M.
rwl 12y ago
> How would content producers possibly deter copying without exerting control on the consumption hardware and software? The only answer there is standardized DRM. They could use the legal mechanisms that have existed in copyright law for a long time: they could find, and sue, infringers. Part of the problem with DRM is precisely that it shifts the power to decide what infringement vs. fair use is away from the legal system, which has checks and balances and has to keep the interests of the public in mind, and toward those who control the technology. That is not an appropriate shift: copyright is a legal right to certain forms of control over work, given to creators as a compromise. It provides an incentive for them to produce that work, which is in the public interest. But how far that control extends should be a matter for the law, not media companies, to decide.
the_af 12y ago
> How would content producers possibly deter copying without exerting control on the consumption hardware and software? The only answer there is standardized DRM. That's not the only possible answer. In fact, there are already content providers (music, games) selling non-DRM'ed content. Another way of deterring copying is for the author to connect with his/her audience, participate in the community and make it morally hard for all of them to copy his work. This works and I've seen it happen. Some guys will be jerks and pirate stuff anyway (they will do this even with DRM), others will think "hey, the author is a nice person, and he/she makes something I enjoy. I'll pay for it and support him/her". This happens all the time with small-scale communities. Of course, this requires work from the author beyond merely creating something, and it mostly works in the small scale, and he/she will probably not get insanely rich this way. But I doubt -- philosophically speaking -- that there is any inherent right to sell something in the large scale, without direct author-audience interaction, and expect police-state measures to work. I reject the assumption that everyone in the audience is a passive consumer and a thief who must be watched for their own good, and that there is no other way to handle the situation.

by evv 12y ago

shmerl 12y ago

> And to that end- that is the legitimate, marketable feature of DRM. Except that it's not legitimate. First of all as the post above implied, DRM simply doesn't advance the goal of "living off one's art" in any way. Or to put it in business terms, DRM doesn't increase sales (because it doesn't reduce piracy). I'd even say it decreases sales because some users avoid DRMed products and it as well increases piracy (because some pirates see breaking DRM as sport - i.e. they are more likely to direct their attention to a DRMed product to pirate it, rather than to a DRM-free one). Plus, it's not legitimate to employ overreaching preemptive policing justified by "need to live off one's art". Same way it's not legitimate to violate everyone's privacy by installing police cameras in people's houses as a preemptive measure against crime. > How would content producers possibly deter copying without exerting control on the consumption hardware and software? They can't deter it. They can reduce it (i.e. turn part of the pirates into paying customers). The way to do it is old and well known, yet many fail to remember it - treat customers with respect (and not as criminals by default). Establish more direct relation with your users, don't be a jerk, be user friendly and so on. People appreciate services which are explicitly DRM-free. On the other hand, paranoid attempts to "deter all copying" result in treating all customers as criminals by default, which turns many of them into pirates (i.e. serves exactly the opposite purpose). For some reason not being a jerk and being user friendly is a novel idea for many legacy publishers which they find hard to digest. Independent studios get it way better.

kreeben 12y ago
"Independent studios get it way better." On that note, may I suggest to those of you who are not already consuming comedy, the very best kind of comedy (the funny kind), from Louis CK to start doing so here: https://buy.louisck.net/ https://buy.louisck.net/
evv 12y ago
I'm not certain about this notion, but I bet the media executives have done the math: DRM probably results in more profit due to lowered casual piracy than decreased profit due to people pirating out of DRM-protest. And I wouldn't consider standardized DRM "overreaching preemptive policing". Compare that to the existing legal consumption options and you'll realize that this "policing" has been happening all along. Look, its great to say that everybody should be nice, but you've got to realize that this existing control is the backbone of the big media industry. Without DRM and the control it ensures, there is no way to ensure advertisments get watched. The ability to track the success of an ad would be lost. As it stands, media consumption is very easy for the industry to monitor and control. This is a huge industry with enormous power- why would they give that up over some upset rights activists? I'm all with you when it comes to indie studios. If the non-DRM party is going to win, its going to be with our wallets. I'd love to see more indie video and music. Maybe new non-DRM offerings will win out, as we are starting to see in the game industry. tldr: At the end of the day, if you want to consume mainstream media, you've got to put up with the mainstream consumption hardware/software.
- shmerl 12y ago
  >I bet the media executives have done the math I get the feeling it's the opposite. They didn't do any math and do it out of inertia or because "everyone does it", or because of the completely other and crooked reasons (like the article linked in the thread explains). DRM doesn't affect casual or non causal piracy - this was already discussed at length in the past here. Because once DRM is broken, piracy occurs using those DRM-stripped copies. I.e. it takes one pirate to break it in order for others to never deal with it. Therefore it doesn't lower piracy rate. And I already explained how not using DRM can actually increase sales. And about DRM increasing piracy, there was an example from CD Projekt Red about their own game which they originally released with DRM (on disks) in parallel with DRM-free version (on GOG). And it was immediately pirated. But not the DRM-free version like you'd assume. It was the DRM-ed one! They said it was an interesting case study for them, which demonstrated that some pirates apparently break DRM for sport (i.e. who beats others to break DRM and pirate it). So it demonstrated for them that DRM boosted piracy. They never released games with DRM since, and advance the DRM-free distribution cause through their GOG service. By the way, music is largely available DRM-free for quite a while already. You can buy DRM-free files on Cdbaby, Amazon or tons of other music sites. Which again demonstrates the point that DRM-free distribution works just fine. > This is a huge industry with enormous power- why would they give that up over some upset rights activists? That's exactly the point. DRM is all about certain control (over the market for example), but not about piracy. Surely those who have that control want to retain it. But they lie to the public claiming that DRM is used for preventing piracy, while really it's used for control. It just adds to the reasons to always oppose it.

pjc50 12y ago

1) Artists getting paid is not a consumer need. It's an artist need. It's also a middleman need; take a look at what fraction actually goes to the "artists" some time. 2) DRM is commercial control over hardware and software, as it's only available with "blessed" software.

ds9 12y ago

"How would content producers possibly deter copying without exerting control on the consumption hardware and software?" Imagine this fictional scenario. Copyright owners sell audio and audio/video files for download. These are without ads, trailers, DRM or other restrictions; they're high quality, complete, available right away, and in popular codecs and formats. In other words, just like Pirate Bay, but legal, and prices are very low. What would happen if this were real? In the mad minds of the cartel, one person would buy each file, and copy for everyone else, and everyone would get the files from torrents, p2p etc.. In reality, if I'm paying Netflix rates for my files (divide say $15 over a month), and others can do the same, why would I copy it for them? They can just get their own. Moreover almost everyone would be willing to pay for their own, because they'd be getting a bargain, and on these terms they would be pleased to support the creators (who sometimes get some pennies from the middle-man companies).

cwyers 12y ago
If you're paying Netflix rates for ALL your TV and movies, the content industry goes bankrupt in a year. Netflix rates are possible because there's now a very low MARGINAL cost to additional copies of a movie or TV show, but if all copies of a movie or a TV show went for that, nothing would recoup its costs.
- Zak 12y ago
  I'm skeptical. Most TV shows are broadcast free of charge and supported by ads and product placement. Paid streaming, digital downloads and DVD sales are supplemental revenue streams. Offering inexpensive, high-quality DRM-free downloads is compatible with making money from overlay ads and (where applicable) product placement. If the content industry doesn't take this path, I see piracy becoming more and more mainstream. My mother (65 years old, not very geeky) pirates TV shows so she can watch them on her tablet on a plane because her Netflix subscription doesn't provide a good solution for that. How long do you think it will be before she drops Netflix because The Pirate Bay has a better user experience?
  - thenomad 12y ago

higherpurpose 12y ago

So you're okay with the idea that the content owners should charge you every time you use the content for a different device, instead of "buy once, use everywhere"?

dreamfactory2 12y ago
It's never been buy once use everywhere. I can't play a book on a record player or put a CD into a tape machine. I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to use the same file on different devices but you need to recognise that your demand is the new method of distribution here that needs to make its case (and I think will do in the long run).
- stormbrew 12y ago
  The current situation in digital distribution is more akin to only being able to play your record on a Phillips record player from 1976-1979 or your CD in a Sony CD player from 1990-1994. Or to read your book by the Patented Blacklight Color Lightbulb from 3M.

rwl 12y ago

> How would content producers possibly deter copying without exerting control on the consumption hardware and software? The only answer there is standardized DRM. They could use the legal mechanisms that have existed in copyright law for a long time: they could find, and sue, infringers. Part of the problem with DRM is precisely that it shifts the power to decide what infringement vs. fair use is away from the legal system, which has checks and balances and has to keep the interests of the public in mind, and toward those who control the technology. That is not an appropriate shift: copyright is a legal right to certain forms of control over work, given to creators as a compromise. It provides an incentive for them to produce that work, which is in the public interest. But how far that control extends should be a matter for the law, not media companies, to decide.

the_af 12y ago

> How would content producers possibly deter copying without exerting control on the consumption hardware and software? The only answer there is standardized DRM. That's not the only possible answer. In fact, there are already content providers (music, games) selling non-DRM'ed content. Another way of deterring copying is for the author to connect with his/her audience, participate in the community and make it morally hard for all of them to copy his work. This works and I've seen it happen. Some guys will be jerks and pirate stuff anyway (they will do this even with DRM), others will think "hey, the author is a nice person, and he/she makes something I enjoy. I'll pay for it and support him/her". This happens all the time with small-scale communities. Of course, this requires work from the author beyond merely creating something, and it mostly works in the small scale, and he/she will probably not get insanely rich this way. But I doubt -- philosophically speaking -- that there is any inherent right to sell something in the large scale, without direct author-audience interaction, and expect police-state measures to work. I reject the assumption that everyone in the audience is a passive consumer and a thief who must be watched for their own good, and that there is no other way to handle the situation.