

International Day Against DRM - Aoyagi
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/understanding-digital-rights-management-international-day-against-drm

======
jfasi
While I appreciate the high-mindedness of the EFF's approach, I wonder if it
would be more effective to borrow a page from the Buzzfeed school of attention
grabbing. The primary challenge is getting people who aren't techies to care.
A headline like "Five Things You Already Do With Your Computer That Could Land
You In Prison" is a great way to do this: it's inflammatory, it's emotionally
driven, it captures the attention of non-techies, and it can naturally be
pivoted into a discussion of why these things are illegal in the first place.

~~~
shmerl
I usually explain it to non technical people some kind like this:

Opposition to DRM can have two aspects, which are good to differentiate to
understand the issue.

First reason is ethical. DRM as preemptive policing is insulting in treating
all users as potential criminals by default. Its overreaching nature is
unethical and as such should be opposed the same way you'd oppose something
like police state approach to society.

Second reason is pragmatical. DRM always cripples digital products by reducing
usability (To put it differently - DRM always gets in the way of the
legitimate user).

There is also another set of reasons which are kind of in between the two
above - security and privacy. DRM always can be viewed as security and privacy
threat, because the very premise behind the DRM is not trusting the user,
assuming all users are potential criminals. As such, DRM usually intends to
monitor and limit users' activity, like any policing does, except that DRM
does it in user's private digital space, on their hardware, in their systems
and programs they run and etc. Since trust should be symmetrical, users should
not trust any DRM and should view it as a security and privacy threat,
especially since DRM implementation is usually some black box code and you
have no clue what it can do. So viewing any DRM as potential malware is a good
symmetrical approach to it treating all users as potential criminals
(infringers).

I'd say out of these, ethical and security / privacy reasons are most
important, while the issue of convenience is less so. However most people
concentrate on the later and even came up with a term "DRM that doesn't get in
your way". That's simply incorrect - DRM always reduces usability by limiting
what you can do with digital product. That's one of the main points in it.

So DRM always gets in your way. Some DRM can be less apparent though, while
another can be very much in the face. I'd say actually the first one is even
worse (not like some would assume that DRM that doesn't bother their comfort
can be acceptable). The reason is simple - if it's hidden and not apparent it
must be even more sinister than one that's very obviously deterring your
experience. It's like a hidden camera vs an open one. Hidden / "unobtrusive"
DRM is worse because you don't pay attention to it and get comfortable with
using it.

~~~
sp332
DRM only gets in the way of legitimate users - pirates don't have to put up
with it. [http://xkcd.com/488/](http://xkcd.com/488/)

~~~
shmerl
Yes, that's implied. But you add a good point - DRM doesn't even stop piracy
and as such the official reason it's usually justified with is completely
invalid. This only strengthens the expectation that DRM is used for completely
different purposes, so it makes it more obvious that it should be opposed and
never trusted.

~~~
sp332
Yeah, I just felt like making it explicit. Try finding a Hollywood blockbuster
that isn't trivially available on the pirate bay - but they still encrypt and
region-lock the DVDs anyway. If they keep a movie from being leaked onto the
internet before it _launches_ in theaters, that's a big win for them.

~~~
shmerl
I updated the phrase. That's a good point to direct to publishers who aren't
crooked but are mistakenly trapped in this DRM mentality. Such ones can be
convinced.

For example GOG is successful in negotiating with various gaming publishers
about releasing even recent games DRM-free. Negotiating with crooks who use
DRM for side reasons can't be productive, but negotiating with those who use
DRM out of habit or notion that "it's a standard in the industry" is possible.
According to GOG, they had many meetings with representatives from various
companies and they asked for graphs, charts and other information about how
GOG operate and how successful is their DRM-free approach. Sometimes that
results in DRM-free releases. And the more they do it, the easier is for them
to demonstrate that.

Unfortunately video industry lacks any serious distributor who would want to
do such kind of work. Netflix and Co. are too comfortable obliging the DRM
insanity.

------
4dl0v3-p34c3
Interesting that they used Google+ and Twitter for this meetup, when those
tools are proprietary in nature, and have DRM features.

inb4 Alt 4 vid conf.: Jitsi, Ekiga, QuteCom/WengoPhone, iptel, etc.

[http://askubuntu.com/questions/41970/what-floss-skype-
altern...](http://askubuntu.com/questions/41970/what-floss-skype-alternatives-
are-available)

Obviously, most of us here use IRC with OTR or SILC

But I agree with jfasi. You have a better chance making a drama video playing
with pathos (maybe have a pet or child be affected by the issue of breaking
DRM), than this discussion barely anyone saw. Maybe they should have announced
this earlier?

Thanks thomasfromcdnjs, for the link.

~~~
drdaeman
> IRC with OTR

I'm terribly sorry for off-topic, but it really interests me. I've never seen
OTR on IRC or XMPP except for private (one-to-one) conversations. Could you go
into some details, please?

As far as I know, OTR only works with two parties talking in private. Is there
a mature, cryptographer-vetted _multiparty_ OTR protocol with ready-to-use
desktop software implementations out there?

The properties that interest me are secure authentication, acceptable forward
secrecy and deniable encryption. I.e. I want to be sure I'm chatting with my
friends, and if they don't keep logs what was said would stay only between us
and the only thing external observer could say is that we had exchanged some
information.

------
marsee
For those looking for DRM free ebooks--O'Reilly has a sale today. Save 50% on
all 8000+ Ebooks & Videos Use Code: DRM2014 [http://oreil.ly/DRM-
FREE-2014](http://oreil.ly/DRM-FREE-2014)

(Full disclosure, I work there)

~~~
leephillips
"(Full disclosure, I work there)"

I've been noticing this kind of disclosure becoming more commonplace, and it's
beginning to bother me. No criticism at all of you: I'm sure you're trying to
be ethical and ensure that there is no possibility that anyone might accuse
you of a conflict of interest. I just wonder what purpose this serves. You
offer a true, interesting, timely, and relevant bit of information. The fact
that you work there doesn't change the nature of the information at all. Even
if you got a commission on each book sold, which is unlikely, it _still_
wouldn't change anything. O'Reilly's a great shop and this is great to know,
in any case. So why this "disclosure"?

~~~
Centigonal
There are a lot of people who actually get paid to trawl internet forums and
say good things about a company or divert people to that company's
products.[1]

Declaring your affiliation is mainly a gesture of good faith, since it shows
you've nothing insidious planned. In longer, discussion-type posts, it's an
invitation for the reader to consider any biases the writer's affiliations
cause them to have.

"Disclosure" type statements have always been common in specialized
communities where decisions involving time and money are discussed. You see
them all over the place in forums for luxury goods consumers (fountain pen
enthusiasts, audiophiles, coffee geeks) and investors. When people start
discussing the exchange of money or time for a specialized good (be it
discount ebooks or paraglider motors), disclosures start to come into play.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill)

------
thomasfromcdnjs
Is the livestream up?

Edit: I found a copy of the stream ->
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQPfntJm0_c&feature=youtu.be](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQPfntJm0_c&feature=youtu.be)

------
aw3c2
I want to buy a DRM-free ebook reader. I will read mostly epub, but support
for HTML and TXT would be nice. Extra points if it supports archives. Any
suggestions?

~~~
dublinben
You could buy one of the really ugly Chinese e-ink readers, but I wouldn't
recommend it.

Kobo makes several _very_ nice ereaders which support EPUB, MOBI, HTML, TXT,
even CBR/CBZ out of the box. They technically support DRM through the books
sold in their marketplace, but you never have to use that.

~~~
aw3c2
Kobo's look perfect, thanks!

------
vivaladav
EA Origin on the International Day Against DRM:
[http://desktopstories.tumblr.com/post/85057429973/internatio...](http://desktopstories.tumblr.com/post/85057429973/international-
day-against-drm)

------
chris_mahan
Just don't use services that use DRM. They will stop.

~~~
dublinben
There's more to it than that. You have to convince others to follow suit.
There are far more people _not_ on HN than there are on HN.

~~~
chris_mahan
Agreed. But I'm still not doing it, even if all the sheep do it.

------
carlosvergara
How many IP evangelists are in on this?

