I see a lot of opposition to DRM on principle. These principles will go nowhere. The interesting question to me is whether DRM is part of an standard s.t. required permissions are visible and minimizable and the platform is open, opt-in and extensible... or whether it will take over your devices with God-knows-what secret solutions, which is the situation today. I think the W3C standard is problematic (having read it) but represents a small step in the direction that is less wrong. The third option, an imaginary free-information utopia, is directly against the economic will of the people in general.
The Internet has shifted a huge amount of that power back to consumers (especially technically savvy ones), so it's understandable that something needs to change. It's also obvious that producers can't create decent content if they don't get paid, but giving them full control of the pipe will end up harming everyone (producers included).
I suppose the main thing I find funny is how outrageous people become when something isn't provided which seems trivial to life. I live in Australia where it seems we are one of the nations the pirates the most. People here, and elsewhere, act as if having a TV show is a basic human right and necessity. Who cares if you can't watch a TV show? I think both sides are in the wrong. Another thing with the horse-riders yelling at some large fat cats is that they often pretend to speak for the masses; the non-hackers, -geeks, or whatever labels are necessary to delineate these two groups. They say they would buy everything if it was available in a way that jives with them and postulate that the masses will run out and buy everything.. and maybe they will, but as one of the 'computer guys' when most people ask about how to use torrents and you ask them why they want to know usually they just want to get something without paying for it. This goes back to Napster too.
This isn't so much directed at you, jobu, these thoughts just came to mind again after looking at the image you posted. I do agree with what's presented in the image in that it is a horrible user-experience.
I'm not quite sure you understand the idea of voting. It's about making your preference known, and it doesn't quite work when your action has no impact on anyone else.
So the alternative to pay for an movie, TV show or videogame is to organize a movement to let people know about the issue. This happens. Remember people voting down Simcity on Amazon? Remember people producing jailbreaks? Remember people picketing outside studios or shops? All those are the alternatives to buying and supporting a broken businesses model. Pressing or not pressing a download button in silence has in contrast zero impact.
I think that not watching could be even more powerful than not voting with your wallet. It shows greater self-control, dedication, etc. It says "Screw you guys, we won't even watch it!" Though, as mentioned in my previous post, I doubt many people would do that as they simply want something for free nor are they so invested in the whole anti-DRM thing.
Even if I don't understand voting, I would still love to hear why the hell people are so up in arms about not being able to watch a TV show especially so when their complaint is that it's released a week later. It would be fantastic to see the pirates look at themselves and what they're doing wrong. A last thing I would like too is an answer to a question: If I create something and will only sell it for $1000 and it is not a human right/basic necessity, if I ask or tell you to not acquire it and use it without paying, would you follow what I've said or ignore it? -- you here isn't meaning you, icebraining.
Maybe your friendships and interests are such that you don't feel you need to. Good for you. But that's not true for everyone, and flippant solutions like "get better friends" aren't always practical or desirable.
>They say they would buy everything if it was available in a way that jives with them and postulate that the masses will run out and buy everything.. and maybe they will, but as one of the 'computer guys' when most people ask about how to use torrents and you ask them why they want to know usually they just want to get something without paying for it.
So your anecdote disagrees with other people's anecdotes. That happens. Is there any actual evidence in either direction?
You said it. DRM is close to censorship in its core idea - it's preemptive policing. The market will find routes around it.
> I see a lot of opposition to DRM on principle. These principles will go nowhere.
Not true. There is a lot of opposition in principle to the totalitarian approach (which DRM embodies). If there would be no opposition, then it will work as "they take as much as you give them". I.e. if you don't value your own freedom, they for sure won't do that for you.
The average consumer will not try to route around unfree information as long as it shows up when they click play. Policing content is not the sort of "market censorship" they care about.
Steam is still DRMed and can be annoying enough. Try to get Loom there to play on your Scummvm and good luck with that. I don't use Steam since I don't want to support DRMed approach. I use GOG and other DRM free distributors for gaming. If DRM isn't very obvious and disruptive it doesn't mean it's not there and it doesn't make it any more ethical than a hidden camera which you are unaware of. I'd say it's better when it's noticeable, at least you can be aware of its risks.
> Policing content is not the sort of "market censorship" they care about.
Tell them about it when their distributor will pull the plug and go out business, informing them that their DRMed content will be lost forever. I'm sure they'll appreciate the view that they shouldn't care about it in such situation.
> It's not true that this represents any threat to DRM.
You don't need to technically threaten something that's already broken. Most DRM is broken in short time. However DRM needs to be threatened on practical and legal levels. Practically by byocotting the DRMed content, and legally by repealing DMCA 1201 and similar laws created to back up DRM.
I will oppose other forms of DRM, like everything Sony has done, but I think companies like Valve have to be rewarded for doing something good for game studios and players alike.
I see your stance the same as I see the RMS stance on software licenses. Too extreme to be practical for all purposes.
I'd say it's practical, reasonable and not extreme to be opposed to any forms of DRM. There is simply no excuse for it to exist.
Unlike Valve, other distributors (GOG/CDPR) proved that DRM free gaming distribution is practical. So I don't see Valve as a best example in the gaming industry. Music is DRM free. Digital books publishing offers more and more DRM free options. It's the video industry which lingers behind the most.
* No lending your game to a friend
* No selling.
Unlearning To Share: The Industry’s Hatred Of Generosity
The really interesting thought experiment I see is this: What if Steam quietly went DRM-free tomorrow? What would change? What wouldn't?
About Steam going DRM free - I'd like that, and I'd subscribe to their service if they'd do it. But they are heavily involved with DRM addicted gaming companies, and unlike GOG don't put any effort into convincing them to publish their games DRM free. GOG invests a lot of time and effort to do it. For Steam it would either mean an enormous amount of reworking their contracts, or simply cutting off a significant part of their catalog. They aren't as principled as GOG to do that.
Ten years ago, would you tell people to go to the doctor if they asserted that the music industry could and would survive selling their music without DRM?
And of course the movie industry was surviving without DRM for some time too. Both thought that lossy analog copying was DRM enough.
But a standard makes it a heck of a lot more likely that someone will have written something that works on your platform.
The existence of the EME standard does not in any way increase the likelihood of DRM vendors supporting any more platforms than they do now.
Please, have a read of the proposal. You'll see that a browser implementing EME does not make it any easier to compile a DRM plugin on a different operating system. The proposed standard has nothing to do with that whatsoever.
In fact we can see this happening already. Netflix supports multiple DRM schemes, one of which is based on the draft HTML5 ECE standard and is used on ChromeOS. Apparently, both the Silverlight-based player and the Android-based player can be used to watch Netflix on ordinary desktop Linux. The ChromeOS one, on the other hand, only runs on authorised Google-provided hardware and only if you don't enable developer mode; no-one's managed to bypass this yet.
That there is competition (and that the market cares) is evident in the fact that iTunes have removed FairPlay DRM from music tracks.
To have an open standard for DRM removes some of this competition point: a win for big incumbents and a loss for consumers.
But whether the methods of DRM are open or closed is an implementation detail. Nobody thinks that TLS being open makes it crackable. But if users and programmers know the capabilities and requirements of DRM solutions, they can sequester them from the rest of the computer.
It only takes one. Everyone else just uses that cracked copy.
I'm not worried about DRM working, I'm worried about it not working in a way that gets in my way as someone whose time is generally worth more than the hassle of finding movies on bittorrent.
Of course, this isn't terribly compatible with general purpose computing but operating systems intended for the public have been moving away from general purpose computing for some time and tables and mobile devices are pretty close to that now.
If we go far enough down that path the makers of these handicapped devices can even get legislative help in preventing competition from more user friendly devices by outlawing their sale as was the case for macrovision.
So it seems to me that the proponents of DRM would never accept a DRM system that is sequestered from the rest of the computer.
At least where I live, "chipping" Playstations was extremely popular. You could get it done for $40 without having to know a lick of hardware.
It's also based on the philosophical aspects of DRM.
Everything which digital technologies enables, DRM takes away. Every improvement enabled by new technology, DRM hinders. Everything which digital opens, DRM closes down.
DRM is artificially retro-fitting the limitations of the past into the future for no other sake than benefiting the already rich, with an added cost of taking control away from the people and handing it to the few.
DRM is digital ass backwards and has no place anywhere in this new century.
Where did you find an open DRM? It sounds oxymoronic.
How is that an improvement, and what does this have to do with a open network with cooperating nodes that any standard compliant software can parse and use?
It's been the general trend in web browsers to minimize the permissions you need to give to plugins--I would expect CDM plugins to evolve the same way.
However, DRM has sometimes been very over-reaching. Perhaps the most infamous example of this was the content protection introduced in Windows Vista, which went very deep into the OS.  After that, can we really expect that DRM proponents would be satisfied with letting their content "protection" system be a well-behaved, harmless little program inside a sandbox?
Chrome can not validate the code nor the inputs to the code. It's a giant security hole. For all you know some CDM will just implement the blu-ray standard, Java and all. Yep, unsecured code execution.
DRM need control over the computer for it to ever do anything. Trying to sandbox DRM, is like trying to sandbox anti-virus software. It can't happen, and has never happened before.