4 ms·

I dunno, all video content is DRM-encumbered, and yet I can choose from a whole range of media players that support all the formats commonly used for cracked "i

I dunno, all video content is DRM-encumbered, and yet I can choose from a whole range of media players that support all the formats commonly used for cracked "illegal" copies. Sure, none of them are made by the mainstream brands that the entertainment industry has a hold over, but that was the same for MP3 players before Apple made its move. (And a bold move it was, because everybody knew the only thin iPods were being used for is to play "illegally" obtained content.) Also, DRM is merely a weapon. Copyright is the killer.

EvanAnderson 12y ago
I don't agree with the "DRM is merely a weapon" bit in your last paragraph. DRM allows rights holders to create and "monetize" new "rights" outside the legislative process. Copyright law (in the United States, at least) allows for "fair use", but the DMCA criminalization of "circumvention devices" creates a method to eliminate fair use rights via technology. Once DRM is legally protected rights holders can go wild using DRM to, effectively, make up new laws.
- pbhjpbhj 12y ago
  I don't think anyone else has mentioned it yet but for me a very important corollary of what you mention about elimination of fair use rights [where's the punishment against this?] is the failure of works to enter the Public Domain. A work with DRM attached can't be Copyrighted. Copyright is a bargain between the demos and the creators of artistic works. In that bargain the creators get protection from the state for their monopolistic exploitation of a work on the proviso that the work then enters the public domain after a "limited" time. Now distribution companies and purchasers of copyrights and employers of copyright creators have managed to erode the limitation of that period to a great extent but the limitation still holds. Ergo, works must enter the Public Domain when the term expires. Works with DRM can not [properly] do this. Not in any way as might analogise that imagined by those creating copyright laws initially. The work must be free to be used in any way the public sees fit (except perhaps those that contravene moral rights, I'd personally extend some moral rights in perpetuity - eg right to be acknowledged as creator of a work). Copyright law should punish those that forcibly rest fair use (or fair dealing as we get in the UK) from the public and no protection should be offered by the state for works that can't be guaranteed to enter the public domain (eg by deposition of non-DRM in an archive to which the rights holder that chooses DRM pays a fee for maintenance). Copyright law is a deal that has been broken. Too much power has been ceded by politicians to the media conglomerates on the public's behalf and without proper warrant.
taiki 12y ago
Nearly every sentence of this post is factually wrong. A wide variety of DRM free video exists on the internet, some of it is even paid material. Louis CK, Jim Gaffigan and Greg Proops have all done DRM-free work. My iPhone can play any video encoded in the right formats using the Videos app. It can also run VLC. A wide variety of main stream BluRay players support DLNA and media via usb. Copyright being a killer kind of overlooks why we have copyright to begin with. I make movie, I get some limited powers to determine who can and can not distribute my work and how it's used. If I make a movie, you don't have the right to make a buck off my work with out my say so. Do you have ANY idea why that's kind of inherently unfair? Also, if I don't want my work used to sell cigarettes or used to stump for some political candidate, then that should be my right. That's not to say copyright reform isn't needed, or that copyright holders don't have disproportional bipartisan political influence or any number of things. However, as a leading issue of our time, it's somewhere near, "Are there too many Buicks on the road?" Fixing or repealing the DMCA is relatively easy. There are many issues that I can think of that just aren't.
hornetblack 12y ago
> Sure, none of them are made by the mainstream brands that the entertainment industry has a hold over Panasonic Viera E5 can play .MKV files used very commonly by pirates.

EvanAnderson 12y ago

I don't agree with the "DRM is merely a weapon" bit in your last paragraph. DRM allows rights holders to create and "monetize" new "rights" outside the legislative process. Copyright law (in the United States, at least) allows for "fair use", but the DMCA criminalization of "circumvention devices" creates a method to eliminate fair use rights via technology. Once DRM is legally protected rights holders can go wild using DRM to, effectively, make up new laws.

pbhjpbhj 12y ago
I don't think anyone else has mentioned it yet but for me a very important corollary of what you mention about elimination of fair use rights [where's the punishment against this?] is the failure of works to enter the Public Domain. A work with DRM attached can't be Copyrighted. Copyright is a bargain between the demos and the creators of artistic works. In that bargain the creators get protection from the state for their monopolistic exploitation of a work on the proviso that the work then enters the public domain after a "limited" time. Now distribution companies and purchasers of copyrights and employers of copyright creators have managed to erode the limitation of that period to a great extent but the limitation still holds. Ergo, works must enter the Public Domain when the term expires. Works with DRM can not [properly] do this. Not in any way as might analogise that imagined by those creating copyright laws initially. The work must be free to be used in any way the public sees fit (except perhaps those that contravene moral rights, I'd personally extend some moral rights in perpetuity - eg right to be acknowledged as creator of a work). Copyright law should punish those that forcibly rest fair use (or fair dealing as we get in the UK) from the public and no protection should be offered by the state for works that can't be guaranteed to enter the public domain (eg by deposition of non-DRM in an archive to which the rights holder that chooses DRM pays a fee for maintenance). Copyright law is a deal that has been broken. Too much power has been ceded by politicians to the media conglomerates on the public's behalf and without proper warrant.

taiki 12y ago

Nearly every sentence of this post is factually wrong. A wide variety of DRM free video exists on the internet, some of it is even paid material. Louis CK, Jim Gaffigan and Greg Proops have all done DRM-free work. My iPhone can play any video encoded in the right formats using the Videos app. It can also run VLC. A wide variety of main stream BluRay players support DLNA and media via usb. Copyright being a killer kind of overlooks why we have copyright to begin with. I make movie, I get some limited powers to determine who can and can not distribute my work and how it's used. If I make a movie, you don't have the right to make a buck off my work with out my say so. Do you have ANY idea why that's kind of inherently unfair? Also, if I don't want my work used to sell cigarettes or used to stump for some political candidate, then that should be my right. That's not to say copyright reform isn't needed, or that copyright holders don't have disproportional bipartisan political influence or any number of things. However, as a leading issue of our time, it's somewhere near, "Are there too many Buicks on the road?" Fixing or repealing the DMCA is relatively easy. There are many issues that I can think of that just aren't.

hornetblack 12y ago

> Sure, none of them are made by the mainstream brands that the entertainment industry has a hold over Panasonic Viera E5 can play .MKV files used very commonly by pirates.