Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

The experiment's already been done. House of Cards was only released with web DRM, and yet it was available via the usual unauthorised channels almost immediately. Even when no non-DRM alternatives are available, DRM is still useless in preventing dissemination.

It also sort of depends on the scale of copying. Having easily available "download movie from netflix" versus "download movie from shady piracy website". Obviously, the analog hole is always there, so there will always be that vulnerability.

Are you under the impression that anyone had ever in the history of anything proposed the hypothesis that lack of DRM defeats piracy?

The hypothesis is that it does just as good (really bad) job of preventing it while encumbering legitimate customers less.

Maybe I'm misreading this but isn't DrJokepu saying to release the show without DRM, not with? If

> House of Cards was only released with web DRM

then how has the experiment been performed? Or did you mean to say the show was released without web DRM?

OK, the experiment isn't exactly the same, but it tests the same hypothesis: that the presence of DRM does not affect the dissemination of the content.

In fact, I'm not sure that performing DrJokepu's experiment as stated would prove anything: releasing episodes of HoC without DRM would have little effect, as they have been copied despite not having been made available without DRM.

My idea was that if it can be shown that piracy levels are about the same with and without DRM an argument could be made that perhaps investing in DRM is a waste of time and money.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact