3 ms·

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 decr

by 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.
- tzs 12y ago
  > 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 Many who would casually pirate (or who would pirate without even realizing they were pirating) do not know about those DRM-stripped copies.
  - shmerl 12y ago
    That depends on what you call "casually pirate". Numbers are important. The massive bulk of piracy occurs with copies stripped of DRM already by those who know how to do it. If some users of a DRMed service will decide to pirate something and will hit a roadblock of DRM not letting them to copy it, they'll quickly find other sources which provide the same thing without DRM. So DRM doesn't prevent them from anything - it actually encourages them to look for pirate sources essentially completely defeating the whole purpose of itself.
bostik 12y ago
> 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. I don't put up with it, and hence have chosen to avoid devices which would impose DRM on me. I'm a voracious reader. Several of my friends have asked why I don't have a kindle, and the answer is simple. Kindle may be the best reader right now, but unless I can freely move any books bought for it to another device down the road, I will REFUSE to pay the prices of e-books. If I can not move it the same way I can move a physical book, I haven't bought it. Therefore, I will not pay even close to the amount of a paperback copy. Something like 30-40% of the physical copy price, at most, would be the correct range. And since I don't own it, I should expect to pay for it about the same amount I would get for it when taking it to a used book shop. So, in reality the correct DRM'd e-book price for me would be something like 10-15% of the physical book's price. Anything more and I simply won't bother unless the book is supposedly really good. All in all, I'll rather leave the book unread for now and eventually get it for ~25% of the price second-hand. That's a market the publishers don't make a penny on. Their loss.
- shmerl 12y ago
  I have the same approach. I don't buy media with DRM ever and only use devices and systems free of DRM (Windows for example has inherent DRM so those who avoid it shouldn't use it either). The only exception are DVDs, because DRM there is so obsolete that it's not relevant. On any Linux distro one needs to use libdvdcss to play them anyway.

by evv 12y ago

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.

tzs 12y ago
> 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 Many who would casually pirate (or who would pirate without even realizing they were pirating) do not know about those DRM-stripped copies.
- shmerl 12y ago
  That depends on what you call "casually pirate". Numbers are important. The massive bulk of piracy occurs with copies stripped of DRM already by those who know how to do it. If some users of a DRMed service will decide to pirate something and will hit a roadblock of DRM not letting them to copy it, they'll quickly find other sources which provide the same thing without DRM. So DRM doesn't prevent them from anything - it actually encourages them to look for pirate sources essentially completely defeating the whole purpose of itself.

bostik 12y ago

> 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. I don't put up with it, and hence have chosen to avoid devices which would impose DRM on me. I'm a voracious reader. Several of my friends have asked why I don't have a kindle, and the answer is simple. Kindle may be the best reader right now, but unless I can freely move any books bought for it to another device down the road, I will REFUSE to pay the prices of e-books. If I can not move it the same way I can move a physical book, I haven't bought it. Therefore, I will not pay even close to the amount of a paperback copy. Something like 30-40% of the physical copy price, at most, would be the correct range. And since I don't own it, I should expect to pay for it about the same amount I would get for it when taking it to a used book shop. So, in reality the correct DRM'd e-book price for me would be something like 10-15% of the physical book's price. Anything more and I simply won't bother unless the book is supposedly really good. All in all, I'll rather leave the book unread for now and eventually get it for ~25% of the price second-hand. That's a market the publishers don't make a penny on. Their loss.

shmerl 12y ago
I have the same approach. I don't buy media with DRM ever and only use devices and systems free of DRM (Windows for example has inherent DRM so those who avoid it shouldn't use it either). The only exception are DVDs, because DRM there is so obsolete that it's not relevant. On any Linux distro one needs to use libdvdcss to play them anyway.