
The Campaign to Eliminate DRM - zoowar
http://www.defectivebydesign.org/
======
walexander
>Holding Nintendo Accountable

>volunteers for Defective By Design assembled the cardboard bricks (and had
some fun doing so!).

They are fighting DRM by sending Nintendo... bricks?

Wearing pink shirts wont get Bush thrown in jail. Wearing teabags off your hat
wont get Obama impeached. And sending bricks will not get DRM removed. Protest
culture in America is a hobby and will not be taken seriously, as a result.

You want to stop DRM, you have to stop buying things that have it. Most people
will not consider it enough of a deterrent not to, neither will most consumers
even know it exists.

HTC removed locked bootloaders because a large number of power users decried
it, along with a large number of competitors offering similar devices.
Nintendo is the only game in town when it comes to Mario. It's great to send
in emails complaining about it, but the only thing that's going to stop them
from putting DRM out is a necessary public outcry (not going to happen - you
need every 6 year old to care), or just them just figuring out the futility of
DRM (which i'm not sure the statistics on).

~~~
jrockway
The point isn't that Nintendo is receiving bricks in the mail, it's that media
outlets are telling users _why_ people are sending Nintendo bricks in the
mail. To get some momentum behind your cause, you have to attract attention.
That's what the bricks are for.

Honestly, I think Nintendo's policy was probably a CYA instead of a detailed
record of what they are planning to do with your data. If that's the case,
they will realize that they look somewhat evil, and reword their legal
agreement. That's much more realistic than impeaching Obama.

------
mlinksva
Unclear why the DBD home page on HN, now (a USian independence day tie-in?),
but I guess it is clear why it is on the front page. I voted it up, and
presumably lots of people will likewise reflexively vote up an anti-DRM link.

Anyway, how goes the campaign to eliminate DRM? DRM hasn't worked to suppress
unauthorized distribution (which of course was a fantasy) and isn't ubiquitous
... except where it is, e.g., Netflix and many consumer devices.

As far as I can tell, the campaign is at best at a standstill. Consumer outcry
even when directly harmed (e.g., useless purchases when DRM service shut down)
is at best tepid. More speculatively, my default view is that DRM is a
misfeature of proprietary software and culture, and will only be eliminated to
the extent free software and culture win.

My default view is probably short-sighted. What will be the role of DRM in
attempting to control devices that have little to do with content, e.g.,
automated vehicles?

~~~
bluedanieru
_USian_

That is so stupid.

------
citricsquid
> The campaign aims to make all manufacturers wary about bringing their DRM-
> enabled products to market. DRM products have features built-in that
> restrict what jobs they can do. These products have been intentionally
> crippled from the users' perspective, and are therefore "defective by
> design"

oh come on, that's just silly. That isn't at all what DRM does, it can be a
side effect of bad DRM but _good_ DRM doesn't "intentionally cripple"
products. Why would anyone support a campaign that starts off by spreading
such silly claims.

~~~
slowpoke
There is no good DRM. Claiming otherwise is simply regurgitating the same
bullshit that companies such as Ubisoft, EA and Valve spout at every given
opportunity.

DRM, in all of its forms, limits what you can do with the product you paid
for. That is - and always will be - intentional crippling and therefore
defective by design. There is no justification for these limitations besides
escapist claims of "protecting intellectual property" or similar nonsense.
It's simply companies trying to control (and lock in) their customers.

I might add that I used to be a big fan of Nintendo for their awesome
franchises. Mario, Link and all the others basically make up a good part of my
childhood. To me, it's just sad to see them going down the same path as all
the other publishers.

~~~
citricsquid
Steam is DRM, but it adds so much value. I prefer to use Steam (with the DRM)
than I do to use a game that doesn't have _any_ DRM because of how much Steam
improves the process of purchasing, installing, downloading and updating
games. DRM done right (eg: Steam) can be awesome.

~~~
slowpoke
That's just obfuscating what DRM really is. Sure, it's cool and convenient to
use Steam, but it's still DRM. Gold-coated feces, if you'd prefer an analogy.
Just for example, you don't actually own the game, and you can't do with it
whatever you want.

tl;dr: Convenience is not a justification for restrictions.

~~~
ugh
That’s an odd position, isn’t it?

I have no problem believing that what you are saying is your opinion but I see
no reason why everyone should be of the same opinion.

Why can’t I be perfectly fine with not owning the game and not being able to
do with it whatever I want in exchange for the convenience of Steam? What’s
wrong with that? I can understand that _you_ believe that those terms are not
acceptable but why do you want to force me to believe the same?

Even after understanding perfectly what Steam’s terms entail I still think
that buying games there is a good idea. What now?

~~~
bad_user
I don't think people are complaining that games should be free of charge.
People are complaining that all of a sudden, the copyright law itself is not
enough.

DRM is broken by design because (a) there is no DRM system that hasn't been
cracked yet and (b) it punishes honest customers.

Not only that, but many DRM systems require online servers to be active. You
don't own the copy you purchased anymore and as soon as that verification
server gets shut-down, then your local copy won't work anymore; unless you
knowingly break the DMCA to workaround the DRM restrictions (which is always
illegal, even if you own the copyright of said content / being the freaking
author).

For me, it is far more convenient to just start downloading a torrent from the
dozens of trackers I have access to, than pay up for DRMed content and get
punished.

That I pay for the apps or other content I use, that's just because the
authors deserve getting rewarded and usually it's not their fault that the
distribution medium is using DRM; but when it is, that feels like a dick-move
to me and I feel no remorse turning to piracy or not using the product at all.

~~~
GHFigs
When you pirate a game, do you also pay for it?

~~~
TheAmazingIdiot
Those who break technological restrictions (DRM) break the law via the DMCA.

Those who download a 'pirated game' do not violate any laws, as far as who has
been prosecuted.

Those who UPLOAD a pirated game can be busted for breaking copyright laws, as
you made a copy to someone else.

My answer: I do not pay for DRM games. Its illegal for me to 'fix' them, so I
pirate. And it saves me money. Start respecting my rights as a user and Ill
acknowledge your rights as a creator.

~~~
GHFigs
_And it saves me money._

You could save just as much money by not playing the game at all.

