4 ms·
And through all this effort to "protect their content", they still haven't managed to stop people from bypassing the DRM and giving the videos away for free in
by slang800 12y ago
And through all this effort to "protect their content", they still haven't managed to stop people from bypassing the DRM and giving the videos away for free in torrents.
I have a hard time seeing how implementing DRM provides any value to media companies, other than a false sense of security.
- vlad003 12y agoIt's possible the false sense of security is worth more than people think. It lets them say "hey, we tried".
- geofft 12y agoCertain companies have been extraordinarily interested in implementing WebCrypto without mandating HTTPS. Which is to say, a man-in-the-middle attacker could trivially modify the JS that calls WebCrypto and cause different operations to be performed. My suspicion is that they have contractual agreements with the non-technical folks in the studios that they have to "encrypt" content, and the technically-competent redistributor has no direct interest in the crypto being sound. If the API gave them 256-bit military-grade AES encryption, but only in ECB mode, they'd probably use it.
- jeremyjh 12y agoI think this is a very important point. These media companies have not been able to extract as much rent from their IP as they could ten years ago, and their shareholders are not happy about that. They absolutely have to try something.
- pkulak 12y agoRight click -> Save As is a tad easier than finding a torrent.
- AnthonyMouse 12y agoRight click -> Save As is only possible after you've paid.
- anigbrowl 12y agoThis overlooks what happens subsequent to the Save As, eg watching it again if you had only paid for a rental or distributing it to other people, which would be a serious infringement.
- quadrangle 12y agoThe purpose if DRM is not to stop people from illegally copying. The purpose is to control and manipulate the legal users and limit their freedoms they would otherwise legally. Yes, DRM developers lie to us and claim that this is about stopping infringement. But that's only a pretense. They know that it only impacts non-infringing users. But they like having more control and power over the non-infringing users. See http://www.defectivebydesign.org/faq#purpose http://www.defectivebydesign.org/faq#purpose
- kmonsen 12y agoThat is also the purpose of door locks btw, and I am assuming you have one of those on your door.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- eridius 12y agoPrison locks != home door locks. kmonsen is making the point that door locks on homes don't actually stop determined burglars. The only reason they work is because most people are relatively honest and aren't willing to take the step of breaking the lock (however trivial that may be), even if they'd otherwise happily open an unlocked door and walk in. Not only that, but the fact that a door is locked almost certainly has legal implications for trespassers (though I don't know if that's really applicable to house door locks as much as it might be to locks on doors leading from public areas of commercial buildings to private ones).
- kmonsen 12y agoThanks for improving my point :-)
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
- bjelkeman-again 12y agoCorporate execs, politicians or government officials rarely look at the world with the same eyes as someone who reads HN. They belive that DRM provides value as otherwise pirating content will be rife. It is sort of built into most of these peoples world view, in a similar way that hard nosed capitalism is nearly the only viable narrative for a lot of them.