

Day Against DRM - bootload
http://www.fsf.org/news/may-4-day-against-drm

======
mkr-hn
This press release sounds like a declaration of war on content creators. You
won't kill DRM by tut-tutting it. You kill DRM by changing the minds of
content creators who use it. You won't do that by waging a war on them.

What does one do to participate in this anyway? The press release wasn't
clear.

~~~
AndrewDucker
They link to <http://www.defectivebydesign.org/> which seems to be main
organising point.

~~~
mkr-hn
Seems very misguided. It takes aim at DRM, not why DRM exists. People don't
care about DRM. Think about how many people buy the products this site calls
defective. But people do care that the people who create think they need DRM.
A public awareness campaign focused on getting people to convince creators
that DRM is bad would be more effective.

------
driverdan
From 2010. Don't people look at dates before posting?

~~~
mkr-hn
Don't Repeat Yourself, in classic UNIX fashion. They're reusing the same blog
post for each year.

~~~
warp
I don't see this linked in the news/event boxes on fsf.org, I think the person
who posted this to HN used an old link -- not the FSF.

~~~
mike-cardwell
I just went to the front page of fsf.org, search for "day against drm" and
clicked the link. It took me here:

<https://www.fsf.org/events/international-day-against-drm>

------
MaxGabriel
Recently I've been researching autonomous cars, and I haven't explored this
idea much, but could DRM have a role in preventing users from modifying the
software that drives their car, or other life-and-death scenarios?

Like I said, it's just an inkling at this point, any thoughts?

~~~
Rudism
I think in issues of public safety like that, it would be more a matter of law
and not digital rights. Tinting your windows too dark, cutting a brake line,
or adding distracting lights to the exterior are all ways to modify your car
that are illegal (where I live, at least), so there's really no need to have
other protective measures against that built into the car. I'd suspect driving
software modifications would be treated similarly, with DRM or some similar
system mainly being used to detect the illegal modifications as opposed to
trying too hard to prevent them.

------
skerrit_bwoy
lol irrelevant

~~~
octopus
@skerrit_bwoy If you want to really participate in a discussion on HN you
should stop trolling and present your opinion.

------
aspir
I would take posts like this from the FSF more seriously if they proposed or
endorsed a solution, rather than simply proposing a protest.

FSF may claim to be about "Free as in Speech, rather than Free as in Beer,"
but DRM straddles both of these points. Yes, we're restricted in the products
that can utilize DRM files, but DRM also exists to protect ownership rights.
Its a complex system, and one that can't simply be "abolished" without some
suitable alternative to protects both interests.

There are lots of theories and examples of alternatives to DRM that protect
the rights of both the creator and end user. I'm just disappointed that the
FSF didn't propose one of these, or their own, as a viable solution. It's easy
to point fingers, it's tough to propose meaningful solutions.

~~~
samdk

        [DRM] can't simply be "abolished" without some suitable
        alternative to protects both interests.
    

It can be and in the music industry largely has been. iTunes has no DRM.
Amazon's mp3 store has no DRM. Bandcamp has no DRM.

The solution is getting rid of DRM. DRM does not prevent people intent on
pirating their media from doing whatever they want. It hurts legitimate users.

The existence of DRM has nothing to do with preserving the freedom of content
creators. Your presentation of it as something that does is naive. It exists
to protect the interests and power of media publishers. The publishers--not
the creators--are the ones making the choices about DRM. Its use is an attempt
to prop up outdated business models, because that's easier--and, in the short
term, safer--than change.

~~~
aspir
In my earlier post I was referring to publishers -- they are partial owners on
the content.

I agree that their business models need an overhaul, but simply pointing a
finger from afar, and telling these entrenched organizations to change won't
get far. These industries are too big and entreneched to just dies either. The
most practical answer is to have some sort of compromise.

It'll be hard to go back to pre-DRM, too. You can't unshift a paradigm like
DRM for big media

~~~
samdk

        You can't unshift a paradigm like DRM for big media
    

Yes, you can.

DRM was pervasive in the music industry. It no longer is. DRM was pervasive in
the ebook industry. We are beginning to see signs from publishers (Tor books
being the most recent example) of a willingness to sell ebooks without DRM.
"DRM-free" has become a selling point for smaller companies in the games
industry.

It is not easy, and it is not fast, but it _is_ possible, and it _is_
happening.

~~~
securingsincity
DRM-FREE is happening in many ways and it's a great thing. But in the music
and movie industry they are leveraging streaming technologies like Netflix and
Spotify to create solutions that still have DRM that just feel less intrusive
then others. For E-books I think companies like O'Reilly are not only making
users who are aware of DRM happy, they are taking a competitive advantage of a
segmented DRM market(Nook vs Amazon vs Kobo vs whoever else) by going DRM-
FREE.

