4 ms·

I really dislike this attitude on HN. You can have great products that make no money because cracks get popular (I have done testing with my own software and k

I really dislike this attitude on HN. You can have great products that make no money because cracks get popular (I have done testing with my own software and know for sure this is the case) and get higher results than the original product listing on google, Adblock, and many other methods thought to be "rights". Even look at music piracy. Pirates did the big labels a favor: small, independent artists can't make a living anymore because everyone just expects it to now be free. They now are almost forced to go with a big label if they actually want to make any kind of living.

colechristensen 12y ago
Regardless of what you believe I am not going to patronize you if you treat me like a thief, likewise I'm going to fight tooth and nail to ensure that I am the one that controls the device I physically own, not a content business.
meshko 12y ago
Like it or not, you can't do it, so don't waste your time.
- stcredzero 12y ago
  To be able to do this on browsers is foolish. Devices might be workable, though they would only be on the same level of deterrent as a cheap lock. A user could always take a photograph of the screen.
kstrauser 12y ago
That attitude is realism. It's not unreasonable to take minor steps to make casual copying easier - the clear GIF overlay is a good example of that - but there ain't no such thing as perfect digital restrictions management. Anything beyond those minor steps becomes an inconvenient nuisance for your real customers and the risk/reward paying just isn't worth it. Imagine you have a stock photo website. Basically honest potential customers might try right-clicking a photo once to download it, and failing that will whip out their credit card. Basically dishonest non-potential customers aren't going to pay you and see your protections as something fun to be worked around. There just isn't a business case for heroic measures that can ultimately be trivially defeated.
- clarry 12y ago
  There's nothing dishonest about not being a customer and not wanting to pay. But breaking protections for the heck of it is fun indeed.
- smtddr 12y ago
  >>Basically dishonest non-potential customers aren't going to pay you and see your protections as something fun to be worked around. You have no idea how much time I've spent on sites doing weird things to try and stop the user from downloading their content. Like online schools that don't want anyone to save the class-lesson videos. I don't even want the media, I just find it irresistible to understand and ultimately defeat their protection.
shmerl 12y ago
> independent artists can't make a living anymore because everyone just expects it to now be free. DRM can't help artists make money. It only helps them lose more. Examples which talk about it: * http://www.lexi-alexander.com/blog/2014/6/1/will-the-real-pirates-please-stand-up http://www.lexi-alexander.com/blog/2014/6/1/will-the-real-pi... > And this is my favorite part: I am 100% certain that the hacking of entertainment industry's security features provides better entertainment for these kids than the entertainment we're trying to prevent them from stealing. Let that sink in for a second, then try not to bust up laughing. * http://brutalgamer.com/2012/03/09/cd-project-red-drm-no-longer/ http://brutalgamer.com/2012/03/09/cd-project-red-drm-no-long... > Every subsequent game we will never use any DRM anymore, it’s just over-complicating things…We release the game. It’s cracked in two hours, it was no time for Witcher 2. What really surprised me is that the pirates didn’t use the GOG version, which was not protected. They took the SecuROM retail version, cracked it and said ‘we cracked it’ — meanwhile there’s a non-secure version with a simultaneous release. You’d think the GOG version would be the one floating around.”
- the_ancient 12y ago
  That is the thing the Content owners do not get... The people releasing the content do not care about the actual content, they are not fans, hell most of them probably never watched/played/listened to the movie/show/game/song they are releasing. The Act of cracking, releasing, encoding, etc is the entertainment for them... The content is irrelevant
  - shmerl 12y ago
    Luckily some start getting it, but the majority still doesn't.
skizm 12y ago
I don't think anyone is saying piracy is not hurting anyone. To what extent, I would say there is a great deal of disagreement. If a perfect DRM existed (completely prevents privacy while leaving paying customers unaffected) everyone would implement it. However, the message is that you shouldn't stoop to making your own product worse or punish paying customers just to combat piracy. For example, if you're selling software and someone wants to buy it, they shouldn't have to jump through hoops to get it and/or use it. On the other hand if someone wants your product and doesn't want to pay for it, there is a significant probability that is a lost sale regardless of DRM efficiency. Just because a ton of people use a pirated version of your software doesn't mean that a ton of people would have bought it if you had better DRM.
base698 12y ago
This is not my experience. I work in a space that is seeing impressive numbers from up and coming acts. To me it seems like the variety and quality of music offered to the consumer has increased leading to more people seeing Joe Blow's act instead of going to Cher or Britney Spears. All the money is in touring and merchandising.
probably_wrong 12y ago
> Pirates did the big labels a favor: small, independent artists can't make a living anymore because everyone just expects it to now be free. This is a point I hear often, but there seems to be no consensus. If I understand you correctly, are you saying that small, independent artists used to make a living just from CD sales? I've only met in person poor musicians, those that make money either from street concerts or the occasional gig, which were consistent with Courtney Love's position[1] that CD sales are not really important when it comes to revenue. But I'd love to hear an argument from the other side. [1] http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/ http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/
the_ancient 12y ago
You may feel it was a "great product" but apparently people were not willing to pay for your great product. Several companies and people get paid giving away their software. I suspect that your DRM was so overly burdensome that it turned away any potential customers, you in effect screwed yourself. If the DRM does not get in may way, or require me to do anything(i.e it is invisible to me) then I might buy that software, for example Steam Games, Spotify, etc have DRM that is invisible to the End User. I will grin and bear this level of DRM, begrudgingly. However if you go much beyond this no thank you. If your software has Activation Keys, Installation Limits, Locks itself to my Motherboard that I change ever 6mos, or other crap like that then you would never get a single dollar from me.
paulhauggis 12y ago
So why again was I down voted? I have a valid point and I wasn't a troll. This community is slowly becoming a circle-jerk of the same exact opinions. Down voting should be there for trolls. However, it is now being used to silence any and all opinions different than your own.

colechristensen 12y ago

Regardless of what you believe I am not going to patronize you if you treat me like a thief, likewise I'm going to fight tooth and nail to ensure that I am the one that controls the device I physically own, not a content business.

meshko 12y ago

Like it or not, you can't do it, so don't waste your time.

stcredzero 12y ago
To be able to do this on browsers is foolish. Devices might be workable, though they would only be on the same level of deterrent as a cheap lock. A user could always take a photograph of the screen.

kstrauser 12y ago

That attitude is realism. It's not unreasonable to take minor steps to make casual copying easier - the clear GIF overlay is a good example of that - but there ain't no such thing as perfect digital restrictions management. Anything beyond those minor steps becomes an inconvenient nuisance for your real customers and the risk/reward paying just isn't worth it. Imagine you have a stock photo website. Basically honest potential customers might try right-clicking a photo once to download it, and failing that will whip out their credit card. Basically dishonest non-potential customers aren't going to pay you and see your protections as something fun to be worked around. There just isn't a business case for heroic measures that can ultimately be trivially defeated.

clarry 12y ago
There's nothing dishonest about not being a customer and not wanting to pay. But breaking protections for the heck of it is fun indeed.
smtddr 12y ago
>>Basically dishonest non-potential customers aren't going to pay you and see your protections as something fun to be worked around. You have no idea how much time I've spent on sites doing weird things to try and stop the user from downloading their content. Like online schools that don't want anyone to save the class-lesson videos. I don't even want the media, I just find it irresistible to understand and ultimately defeat their protection.

shmerl 12y ago

> independent artists can't make a living anymore because everyone just expects it to now be free. DRM can't help artists make money. It only helps them lose more. Examples which talk about it: * http://www.lexi-alexander.com/blog/2014/6/1/will-the-real-pirates-please-stand-up http://www.lexi-alexander.com/blog/2014/6/1/will-the-real-pi... > And this is my favorite part: I am 100% certain that the hacking of entertainment industry's security features provides better entertainment for these kids than the entertainment we're trying to prevent them from stealing. Let that sink in for a second, then try not to bust up laughing. * http://brutalgamer.com/2012/03/09/cd-project-red-drm-no-longer/ http://brutalgamer.com/2012/03/09/cd-project-red-drm-no-long... > Every subsequent game we will never use any DRM anymore, it’s just over-complicating things…We release the game. It’s cracked in two hours, it was no time for Witcher 2. What really surprised me is that the pirates didn’t use the GOG version, which was not protected. They took the SecuROM retail version, cracked it and said ‘we cracked it’ — meanwhile there’s a non-secure version with a simultaneous release. You’d think the GOG version would be the one floating around.”

the_ancient 12y ago
That is the thing the Content owners do not get... The people releasing the content do not care about the actual content, they are not fans, hell most of them probably never watched/played/listened to the movie/show/game/song they are releasing. The Act of cracking, releasing, encoding, etc is the entertainment for them... The content is irrelevant
- shmerl 12y ago
  Luckily some start getting it, but the majority still doesn't.

skizm 12y ago

I don't think anyone is saying piracy is not hurting anyone. To what extent, I would say there is a great deal of disagreement. If a perfect DRM existed (completely prevents privacy while leaving paying customers unaffected) everyone would implement it. However, the message is that you shouldn't stoop to making your own product worse or punish paying customers just to combat piracy. For example, if you're selling software and someone wants to buy it, they shouldn't have to jump through hoops to get it and/or use it. On the other hand if someone wants your product and doesn't want to pay for it, there is a significant probability that is a lost sale regardless of DRM efficiency. Just because a ton of people use a pirated version of your software doesn't mean that a ton of people would have bought it if you had better DRM.

base698 12y ago

This is not my experience. I work in a space that is seeing impressive numbers from up and coming acts. To me it seems like the variety and quality of music offered to the consumer has increased leading to more people seeing Joe Blow's act instead of going to Cher or Britney Spears. All the money is in touring and merchandising.

probably_wrong 12y ago

> Pirates did the big labels a favor: small, independent artists can't make a living anymore because everyone just expects it to now be free. This is a point I hear often, but there seems to be no consensus. If I understand you correctly, are you saying that small, independent artists used to make a living just from CD sales? I've only met in person poor musicians, those that make money either from street concerts or the occasional gig, which were consistent with Courtney Love's position[1] that CD sales are not really important when it comes to revenue. But I'd love to hear an argument from the other side. [1] http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/ http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/

the_ancient 12y ago

You may feel it was a "great product" but apparently people were not willing to pay for your great product. Several companies and people get paid giving away their software. I suspect that your DRM was so overly burdensome that it turned away any potential customers, you in effect screwed yourself. If the DRM does not get in may way, or require me to do anything(i.e it is invisible to me) then I might buy that software, for example Steam Games, Spotify, etc have DRM that is invisible to the End User. I will grin and bear this level of DRM, begrudgingly. However if you go much beyond this no thank you. If your software has Activation Keys, Installation Limits, Locks itself to my Motherboard that I change ever 6mos, or other crap like that then you would never get a single dollar from me.

paulhauggis 12y ago

So why again was I down voted? I have a valid point and I wasn't a troll. This community is slowly becoming a circle-jerk of the same exact opinions. Down voting should be there for trolls. However, it is now being used to silence any and all opinions different than your own.