Give customers encrypted content and the keys, try to prevent them from freely using the two together, undermine copyright fair use and first sale doctrines as you go along.
Intended effect - No Piracy
Actual effect - Paying customers get crippled products, pirates carry on regardless
It's crazy. And the more they try to lock it down the worse their products become and the better piracy looks in comparison. Pirates don't only beat the legit industry on price, they beat them on quality and availability. How can the industry allow this to stand? Let alone continue down the same path with their fingers in their ears shouting LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!?!
When the people with money say "we want this", you don't argue. It doesn't matter if it's technically infeasible. It doesn't matter if it won't have the intended effect. When the people with money want something, YOU GIVE IT TO THEM. And let them deal with the consequences. Otherwise, you won't get the business, and life can otherwise be made very, very difficult for you.
The people who run Hollywood have lots of money to play with. The people who run the Web companies want a piece of that action. Hollywood says "no can do unless we have reasonable assurance that due diligence has been done to prevent piracy -- that means DRM." DRM isn't really about being effective -- it's about providing a nominal barrier to piracy that will dissuade casual pirates outright, and in the case of serious pirates, provides something that can be "broken" so the studios can go after the person who broke it with civil and criminal copyright infringement claims. Now you know why the DMCA anticircumvention provisions exist: so the copyright industry can do with the law what DRM alone couldn't do.
So the Web either gets DRM, or Hollywood makes content available on proprietary platforms that provide it.
Money shapes reality in this world.
For people willing to pirate, it, yes. However, it's far less convenient to pirate movies and get them to your big screen TV than it was to use napster and listen to songs on your mp3 player. On the flip side, Netflix (i.e. content with DRM) accounts for roughly 1/3 of nightly internet traffic in the US. DRM facilitates consumer access to restricted content.
> Besides, for the w3c, where is the business incentive, where is the money involved?
The w3c is primarily an industry group. The players pushing DRM in HTML5 are Google, Netflix and Microsoft, all of whom have a business interest in being able to stream content via browsers.
What good is protection against piracy from people not willing to pirate?
And no, pirated content is far more convenient than DRMed content. DRM can only reduce the conveninence, not increase.
It's about business. Protection that works for 99.5% of the population is good enough for the old content industries. Netflix couldn't exist in its current form without DRM -- Netflix does not succeed because of novel technologies, but rather because of successful content licensing.
To be clear I'm not a fan of DRM, especially not when it's baked into the HTML standard.
> And no, pirated content is far more convenient than DRMed content.
I didn't say that - you're arguing against a position I didn't state.
I require a definition of how they are "considered harmful" because I seriously doubt that.
What's to stop someone from creating their own web client that doesn't implement that part of the standard? Where's it written that we have to follow every bit of the standard as it is written? Who gave this select group of people that much power over the open web?
Personally, I think the W3C was approaching being corrupted long before this issue. Maybe not in the terms you are describing right now but I've had issues with the behavior of various standard bodies and browser providers that happen to be a part of these bodies for a while now.
As for artifacts of culture being locked away from future generations, that is a potential problem. But we all know a silly DRM scheme isn't going to stop that. But that kind of thing has been in practice for a long time, way before we had electronics and the human race seems to be moving along in despite.
To me, a better solution is to show that people are willing to move on from these aspects of culture that everyone is so hung up on. If enough people show that these schemes don't work in the long run the content providers are more apt to change their ways. Look at the music industry, it's vastly different than it was just a few years ago and continues to change. Let these people attempt their schemes, in the long run it will matter little.
I keep pointing out that people are claiming that this is harmful in some personal way. I keep asking how. The best I've seen is that it creates harm to the standards, which is more about causing harm to the people who control the standards. This decision directly harms the standards body itself, it does not harm the open web. Corrupting the standards with bad decisions hurts the reputation of the standards body, which will eventually importance in the scheme of things. The open web will just move on to something else. The reason I say that is because if the web is truly open, it is free to ignore the "standards" it doesn't like. Meaning, the people who use it can choose to not participate. It's a standard because everyone agrees to use it together. If the people using the open web decide they don't like a browser that implements DRM they don't agree with, then they have the option to choose a browser that doesn't implement the DRM. If there isn't such a browser, the open web allows someone to create and share it with the masses.
If this decision actually causes harm to the open web, then it's not truly open because that implies no one can get around the decisions made by this select group of people. If that's the case, then the web doesn't sound very open as it stands today.
>>> or Hollywood makes content available on proprietary platforms that provide it.
Let them. They will spend tons of money on it and all those money will go down the drain once somebody wakes up and understands that treating customers as customers is better than treating them as enemies.
Strange how the general public don't get DRM-free movies from hollywood...
Either way, my point was exactly about 'Hollywood', if you want to call them that, it's them that are delusional about their ability to protect content with DRM.
>> Money shapes reality in this world.
In this case it sems to propagate delusions.
As for your statement that Hollywood is being delusional about DRM being able to prevent piracy. They are not delusional about it at all. They know exactly what's going on. They want DRM that prevents casual copying so that Uncle Bob doesn't give a copy of the latest movie to his entire family which is not an attempt at monetary gain. That way they only have to spend money going after serious piracy efforts that exist for the purpose of making money. Your statement assumes that Hollywood is being run by stupid people and that's a serious mistake to make in this type of debate.
>> They may grumble when they have to purchase a movie for the second or third time.
So not happily then. And not what they actually want.
>> but they continue to do so
Because the choice is that or piracy, and many choose piracy. 'Not participating in popular culture' is a choice, but it's never going to be a big one.
>> You are attempting to apply your viewpoint on the general public, which clearly does not agree with you.
The general public are dolts, but even you have admitted they grumble and don't get what they want.
>> They want DRM that prevents casual copying so that Uncle Bob doesn't give a copy of the latest movie to his entire family which is not an attempt at monetary gain.
Then they have failed, because cousin bill, Bob's kid, has that figured out on them innernets.
>> That way they only have to spend money going after serious piracy efforts that exist for the purpose of making money.
Serious piracy efforts like usenet, torrents, IRC etc? Nobody makes much money there. There are for profit piracy-streaming services that advertise I guess. Never seem to have much legal trouble.
>> Your statement assumes that Hollywood is being run by stupid people and that's a serious mistake to make in this type of debate.
It is. Powerful, litigious stupid people with a lot of vested, anti-consumer interests.
Yes, yes they do. Take a look at the proceeds from those industries and tell me people are not handing over money for said content.
>> So not happily then...
Ah, I see the problem. When I said happily I meant this definition: "felicitously; aptly; appropriately". Meaning they pay because that's what they are supposed to do. My bad. What they want and what they do are two different things. You see, they don't want to pay for multiple copies but they do, not because of DRM. They do so because that's what they are "supposed" to do. This is more of a philosophical, economical, and/or legal issue they complain about, not technological. DRM is technology that most people are probably not even that much aware of in their day-to-day lives.
>> ... many choose piracy...
I didn't claim otherwise. But, as you say, they have the choice to not participate. That's my current answer to what I feel is outlandish cable subscription fees as compared to my perceived value of what they offer. It doesn't work for me, therefore I don't pay for cable. I use other means to access the media that I wish to consume.
>> The general public are dolts...
I think it's rude of you to apply your viewpoint on a large group of people that aren't even aware of your problem. Then when they don't go along with what you think they should be doing or what you think they should know, your method to convince them otherwise is to insult them? You're not going to win anyone over with your argument.
>> Then they have failed...
Due to record profits, I think the situation has worked out quite nicely for them. I think you are exaggerating in your own mind the number of kids who are sharing movies with their families and the impact this actually has.
>> Serious piracy efforts...
If you think trading torrents is serious piracy, then you need to read up on what true media piracy is. I'm not talking streaming or torrenting content. There are areas of the world where you can buy a perfect copy of a DVD or Blu-Ray for very little and the original content owners get nothing. It's a huge industry and I'm not talking just movies/music here. Plus in these areas this is practically endorsed by the local governments as legal. And I believe there's been a few cases of big-time streamers having legal troubles, Megaupload comes to mind. Before you say anything, that fell apart because of government incompetence, not because of the lack of anyone actually breaking the law.
>> It is...
Then you are naive. Stupid people don't make that kind of money and do the things they do. Just because you think they're stupid and you can cast opinions on things they do as stupid doesn't make it true. Their anti-customer interests, which is only a recent thing mind you, are possible due to carefully crafted legal systems that took years of planning and execution that you claim they are too stupid to have accomplished. If you're going to fight this battle then you need to understand what you're up against.
Very few people are intelligent in all areas, these people are clearly shortsighted and stupid in many.
I'm not going to address the rest of your comment, needless to say I disagree with pretty much everything you have to say on the topic, and I think that you set up and knock down a variety of convenient straw men on your response there.
But if you want to skip the rest of the response by claiming straw men without defending your claim then that's fine. Especially since you did it yourself with your "very few people are intelligent in all areas" comment. I was directly responding to your statements so I fail to see how the straw man fallacy applies. I did not present a distorted version of your position, I directly responded to it. But, who cares, it's only a discussion between strangers on the Internet. We're not creating world peace here.
Apparently this applies to everybody except consumers.
There is no real barrier to piracy. There's a minimal barrier for the hottest Hollywood properties - meaning you have to go through the hassle of a torrent instead of just going to YouTube - but if you want the content for free bad enough, you'll get it. Usually before it is available through legal channels.
Where your kid might be the factor in the piracy bit is in file-sharing, which makes you an uploader and not just a downloader.
What's wrong with that scenario, exactly?
> What's wrong with that scenario, exactly?
Nothing. It's the current scenario. It can bother users, but overall it bothers big media, because piracy is active and well on those proprietary platforms. That's the complaint we hear from them.
There's a large part of W3C that want change so that people with disabilities (such as poor vision) can enjoy big media products. Of course, that assumes that big media cares about implementing the ARIA stuff. I personally believe that their not caring in the past, on proprietary platforms, is an indication of what they'll do in the future, on the Web.
DRM in the Web will be a proprietary platform! The EME proposal is a proposal to make the former open Web depend on proprietary platforms. The actual DRM is not specified (how could it be?) and it only proposes an API the browser should provide for the proprietary binary blob DRM.
This is a really horrible step and an attack on the open Web! I'd much rather have Netflix and Hollywood use a completely proprietary DRM platform for their streaming services than them ruining the Web.
so, let's turn the web into another proprietary platform?
The media executives are of the firm belief that unbreakable DRM is just around the corner, and that when they reach it, piracy will end and they can go back to charging whatever they want again. A return to the good old days of $25 CDs for one song you like and eight filler tracks.
But as far as music and movies go, the genie's already out of the bottle: even with unbreakable DRM, we can always fall back on old camcorders / capture cards and microphones to make lossy copies. I think most pirates will tolerate a bit of quality loss if it saves them heaps of cash.
I think they will ultimately succeed in game DRM that remains unbreakable for the entire duration of a game's market viability, though. Especially with required online connectivity components. But only time will tell.
It's funny how the facts change over time. Just to correct the facts here: the reveal of the PS3 hack occured on January 26, 2010 and then OtherOS support was removed on April 1, 2010 citing security concerns as the rationale. And to top it off: if you look at the hacker's reasons for hacking, Linux was nowhere in his motivations.
Off topic: This is why I hate history. If we can't even remember what happened 3 years ago even if we have all records available at our fingerprints then how can we be sure what happened like 100 years ago?
As a counterpoint, I offer the xbox 360, which to my knowledge has not been cracked except for DVD firmware hacks and physically altering the device (mod chips).
The conclusion of this is that hackers will not continue to win the DRM battle. Eventually, enough holes will be plugged, where cracking these products becomes so time or cost prohibitive that the product stays closed for it's lifetime.
Also it's much more convenient that my camera and phones use sd cards instead of memory sick..
Although it sounds poetic, I don't believe for a second that the PS3 was protected by offering a limited Linux install option with crippled software graphics. The timing of the break just coincided well with that. Of course this is all my opinion on the matter.
The PS4 lacks Linux install support completely, so if Linux was the protecting factor, then people should already be tearing it apart, right? I could certainly be wrong, and there could be a gaping flaw, but my hunch is that it's going to take longer than the PS3 to crack.
From the studies done, piracy is not about cash, it's about convenience, freedom, etc. If the studios released the content for free (as in beer) but DRM-encumbered then pirates would still be removing the DRM.
I would really like to see more scientific results on how low the quality can be if the viewer doesn't exactly desire the content but uses it to just pass the time and how that compares to the price of going to the cinema.
For movies, I've always been perfectly happy with DVD recodes into 700MB XviD. Could probably go much lower if they were recoding from a lossless master and using H.265. For most things, the Bluray/1080p quality jump reveals details I don't want to see, like how caked on actor makeup is, and all of their skin complexion issues. Great for nature shows, though.
The cutoff points for me are 64kbps Shoutcasts and telesyncs. At that point, the quality is so bad that it makes me dislike the music or movie I am watching.
Intended effect - Lock people into your plataform, and externalize the cost into content distributors
Actual effect - Exactly as intended
I'm not sure I see anything wrong with DRM per se (this could be my fever talking), there are probably good uses I'm too dim to think about, but I do think it's unnecessary as part of the HTML specification.
There's no industry or company that has switched to DRM-free content, that I know of, that has failed or suffered because of it:
* Music is largely available DRM-free now, thanks to Amazon's MP3 store (at the least, I'm sure there are others)
* For games, Steam makes it easy to avoid SecuROM Hell
* Despite DRM, all of Netflix's original series House of Cards was available on The Pirate Bay within hours of release. This doesn't seem to hurt Netflix's wish to create more content, or police it more heavy-handedly. (Maybe they would if they could)
For that matter, I think in the modern case every single time a business went DRM free it turned out OK. Isn't that right? In all modern cases, maybe after 2006-ish, DRM-free businesses were accompanied with an easy way to get the content online, and sales did not seem to suffer because at the end of the day piracy can appear (or be) shady and people (rightfully) don't trust shady websites, even The Pirate Bay with all of its popups.
I wish we had better numbers. I would like to see a real analysis on all the reasons people don't pirate and instead buy on Steam. I wish there was a good way to convince media businesses at large.
But I guess this is all water under the bridge, and I'm preaching to the choir.
Apple should get significant credit here. It was Steve Jobs' open letter of 2007-02-06 to the big four labels calling for them to go DRM free that got the ball rolling. EMI agreed, and Apple started selling DRM-free tracks from them on 2007-05-27.
Amazon's public beta of their MP3 store launched on 2007-09-25, four months after Apple had started selling DRM-free music. Amazon was the first to get contracts in place with all four major labels for DRM-free music.
The iPod won the music player market, so if you tried to sell music with DRM you need to either (i) play by Apple's rules or (ii) have mundane tech users being confused when they can't play the music they bought on the what at become THE standard music player.
In 2006, during discusion of the Broadcast Flag DRM, an 82 year old senator was given an iPod and started to realise that lots of DRM wouldn't work with it. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2006/01/history-and-senator-st...
You are right in general though. Going DRM free not only won't hurt any publisher, it will only gain respect from customers and will improve the quality of their products in a sense of improved usability, because any DRM means a crippled product (i.e. limited platforms availability, inability to make backups and etc. and etc.).
The problem is, that most legacy publishers are rarely customer focused and think that DRM helps their profits. And unprincipled distributors like Netflix are ready to oblige. But the irony is, those publishers only hurt themselves by continuing using DRM. It's mostly innovative publishers, or self published studios (and crowdfunded projects) that have common sense and avoid using DRM. Luckily some distributors are also principled enough to reject DRMed products from publishers. But such are a minority still.
1. Publishers decide to treat all potential users as criminals, and insist on using DRM in their products.
2. Distributors accept that, and help these unethical publishers to sell those products.
3. Users accept being treated as criminals, and buy these products from distributors.
It starts from the publisher of course, but anywhere down the line, one can refuse to accept this. Distributor can refuse dealing with DRMed products from publishers. Users can refuse buying DRMed products from distributors. Any participation in that chain proliferates DRM, and one can't excuse this participation with the fact that it was initiated by the publisher.
Supporting unethical practice can't be excused with fear of going out of business by the way. Also, publishers need distributors and users not any less than distributors and users need publishers, if not even more. Therefore voting with your wallet (on either distributor or user level) is not senseless. Except that distributors have more leverage on publishers, because of their scale, in comparison with an individual who buys only DRM-free products. Therefore distributors can be blamed more for DRM proliferation.
Publishers of new games (especially expensively developed new games) are more likely to fear a loss of revenue, especially in the crucial early period after release, without DRM.
I'm not really sure why bigger size of the budget should reduce the common sense of the publisher. Legacy publishers are obsessed with DRM, but DRM has nothing to do with revenue whatsoever. It doesn't reduce any piracy, and only cripples the experience for legitimate users. It's stupid from common sense business perspective, and there is an increasing amount of big budget games which come out DRM free. I view it as simply mentality issue. Legacy publishers can't understand that they should start being customer focused. New ones have no issues understanding it, therefore they don't use any DRM.
Practically all do, I already explained above. Being unable to back up the installer is already DRM, and it's coming from Valve themselves, not from the publishers.
Always on-line DRM and such is another level of nastiness, but the above is DRM too.
My theory is that if Steam goes belly up, I can do a backup of my games, and use the same avenues pirates use to circumvent Steam. Hopefully they would release control of their games though if they went belly up.
As far as poor customer service, I suppose I have been lucky so far.
Yes, that's one of their downsides. Even their reasoning is becoming less and less sensible. They claimed they still can't figure out how to offer long term support on Linux. May be Docker can help them.
GOG's position is totally understandable.
FatELF would of addressed at least some of these problems, but was largely rejected by the larger community of people not shipping proprietary products on Linux:
Ping me at email@example.com about this anytime.
they just have saner fallback times than other ill talked solutions from EA. but besides its pretty eyes, its the same virus.
good luck running online games as root.
These settings are up to the game developer themselves. You are right about the offline mode, but it does not apply to all games.
Steam is not DRM-free. It's just gamer-accepted DRM.
Steam's DRM is still DRM and has all the downsides that come with it. You're exactly right that it's accepted by gamers due to Valve's cult status (which I honestly don't understand given that I only have mediocre to terrible experiences with their games and services) and the fact that people have bought huge libraries through Steam and have to defend their decisions.
If Steam works on the new account you can start deleting plists.
- Great selection. Just about any game can be bought on Steam
- Steam sales. Amazing, unprecedented prices for games
- The DRM successfully stays pretty much out of the way for 99% of users
- Centralized game management. I don't want to have twelve different game distribution clients, each with one or two games. I would much rather have just one
- Centralized automatic updates. Less of a big deal today than years ago.
It's great that you had a good experience with your particular customer service agent. But what if you request a refund from someone who is feeling unwell that day, had a death in the family or is just feeling like being an asshole. Then you're account could be blocked with limited recourse.
In this day and age there really is limited point to DRM. Everything becomes available on Torrent sites anyway and all it ends up doing is treating legitimate, paying users as second class citizens.
Edit: This also means, to the original comment, that Steam does not necessarily make it especially easy to evade SecuROM Hell or other DRM methods, as games on Steam can still have their own protection schemes. It only makes it easier insofar as those are normally marked and games have with Steam only another, better option. Maybe that was meant.
I'm a little surprised that they haven't been dinged by the card companies yet if reports of whole accounts being blocked based on one chargeback are true. Even Valve are just another retailer to the likes of Visa and Mastercard, and the card services tend to take a very hostile view of merchants who try to evade their obligations under the card service policies if something comes to their attention.
I'm also surprised there haven't been more legal cases considering the implications of SaaS, on-line media library services, software that requires phone-home activation/DRM, and the like. There are obvious ways that such systems/services could provide unfair leverage against consumers in the event of any dispute, and as you mentioned it seems very likely that they would fall foul of the law here in Europe, or at least in several national jurisdictions within Europe. The US tends to give businesses a lot more slack to play with on such matters, though.
I have experienced both. For instance songs are very cheap when your monthly income over £1,500 but when your monthly income is £300 (that's the equivalent in pounds in the country i grew up in) that's a bit too much for just one song.
Same for everything else since they're all price for the US,UK,etc market.
Now that i can afford it i choose to pay for the content i like (it's my way of encouraging the people creating the things i like) even though i could still pirate it.
Then again I'm still forced to pirate some things that can't get legally.
Wish i didn't have to but it's not like their giving me a choice.
I guess "essential" has many definitions, huh...
So if we judge by that, the right to participate in culture is more important than the right to food (or more likely, is simply more often challenged and disagreed with).
If the whole legal regime around copyright is having the effect of preventing people from participating in their culture/society, those laws are immoral and should be opposed.
I also fail to see how copyright laws are preventing anyone from enjoying their culture.
I guess this is what you get when you allow business-minded people to define what being human is all about...
It's sad when idle consumers come to believe they are entitled to the product of another's labor for free.
But if I use my culture as a basis for a song that I write and I wish to sell it to make money, then you're dang right I see it as stealing if someone takes it without my permission.
If an artist wants to share it openly, then that's excellent. But if the artist wishes to make money from their effort why is it your "right" to demand otherwise?
It's not about being business-minded, it's called having rights over your own property.
An artist who works alone deserves your money but an artist who agrees to work with a third-party does not? Because the third-party might get a piece of the pie dictated by the contract the artist agreed to? That's an extremely weak defense of not paying for content.
Are book stores okay? Because I'm sure they make money from the books they sell that they didn't personally write. Well, that's not an exact comparison but I hope you get my point.
I have to say, I am astounded at the level of entitlement people seem to have when it comes to consuming content others worked to create. I want it, therefore it should be mine is the mantra of this type of thinking.
Although, I agree with you on the copyright laws, they shouldn't be extended like they have been. But that's an issue to complain to the people who write the laws, not the content providers who take advantage of them.
that works when the law makers are ethical and neutral. When the "content providers" get in bed with law makers to create laws favourable to themselves, then what?
I want to participate in culture by creating a derivative work based on the disney micky mouse figure. But i m disallowed, because of the said laws, unless i paid disney some amount of money. Do you think disney deserves this money?
Your complaint is with the law, it has nothing to do with the content providers. You say but the content providers influence the law with money. In that case your complaint is with the system that writes the law. Your ire is misdirected and likely will cause nothing to change.
Of course, there's civil disobedience to consider. It would be an interesting way to combat the laws at hand but I'm not sure how to go about that in terms of media consumption. I suppose if enough people did it at the same time.
But you fall into the common problems with these type of discussion; you act as if your choices are limited. For instance, with piracy it's usually "they don't make it easy and/or cheap enough for me to buy so therefore I must steal it" which is a self-limiting range of options. It totally ignores several options such as simply not consuming the content in question and move on to something else. You present only one option in your desire to create, a derivative work based off of another's content. That's not your only option in this case.
Finally, this idea that this stuff is a part of our culture and we're locked out of it. I would say if we're locked out of it so tightly that we can't enjoy it then I wouldn't call it part of our culture. But this culture defense is new to me in these terms, it's an interesting idea. It will ultimately fail in the end but an interesting defense nonetheless.
That's begging the question. We could change the law, but first we have to ask if we should, and in what way. That's why chii asked: Do you think disney deserves this money? Only after we answer that, will we know what the law should be.
It's like that silly issue where everyone gets mad every year at international companies following various country's tax laws to reduce their tax obligations as much as possible but never actually demand a change in the laws themselves. They rail against the company as if that will change anything.
But to answer the question again, yes indeed, Disney deserves that money because that's what the law states. I don't understand how I can make that more clear. The fact that they get any money at all from their original creation is directly tied into such laws. Without those laws they have to hope for the best on the goodwill of people to compensate them for their work. As for deserve? They created it didn't they? Do they deserve anything at all? If they do, for how long until it could be considered public domain? Should anything be considered public domain after a time at all? That's what the law is for, to answer those questions. If you want to change the law, the current law applies until you change it. You can't start at zero and build up, you have to start with what's already established. Therefore, Disney deserves that money because of the law as it stands today.
I think the thing I've been missing is so far is because Disney is the example, which is a big company, and big companies are evil right?
Let me toss a wrinkle into that logic.
Newly graduated college student makes an animated short. Took months, maybe years, to get it done. Took weeks, maybe months, of hard work to get it visible to the public. Public loves the film and wishes to buy a copy. Someone makes a "derivative" work that copies the characterizations of the original animation. For some reason, derivative work becomes popular. Original creator loses out. Screw the original creator right?
You do realize that the most likely outcome of allowing derivative works to happen too soon is that the big companies with their huge resources will swoop in and wipe out the small guys in no time flat? You think I'm defending big companies with these statements? I'm defending all creators regardless if they are Disney or the dirt-poor artist down the street.
If you have a problem with Disney being able to continue making money from their original characters, despite some of their characters being based off previous stories in the public domain, because copyright laws keep getting changed then you're problem is with the system that allows such things. Attack the system, not creators because you'll almost always come across as unfair to them in some way.
No, just a few :) My problem with Disney is that in protecting their own interests, they also extended copyright on tons of other people's works as well. http://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2014/pre-1976 I believe the original creator, big or small, is not as important as the rest of the people in society. If big corporations make most of the money from derivative works, that doesn't prevent other people from making their own as well. But copyright means there is a state-granted monopoly on nearly all creative works.
If you have a problem with Disney... then your problem is with the system that allows such things.
How would you "fix the system" so that only certain people get a say? Disney can lobby if they want, I just want them to lobby for different things.
You keep using that word without realizing that the rest of us may have already moved on to a different concept of ownership.
How shall we define the act of taking property without due compensation that the owner of said property expects?
You simply want to redefine things so you can apply your alternative interpretation of ownership in a way that allows you to obtain someone's property without compensating them for it. You feel entitled to someone's work because it's easy to duplicate it. It could take an artist weeks or months to create their work and you feel they deserve nothing because you can copy it in seconds. That's a sad justification.
Whether the fact it can be easily duplicated is irrelevant. Someone created that work with their time that they can't get back. They spent a moment of their life away from other things creating this that they can't get back. They spent resources (not necessarily money) creating this that they can't get back. None of that can be duplicated in seconds. If they wish to be paid for granting you access to that work then they should be compensated as they wish. If you don't agree with the price of admission then you don't get access. Thinking otherwise is admitting you feel you are entitled to it because you simply want it and the original creator can suck it. You are saying the creator's time and effort is worth nothing.
I simply cannot agree with that way of thinking.
Also, again my bad, I'm attributing the whole discussion onto you instead of specifically your statement. I tend to lump everything together when multiple people respond throughout a single thread as though they are in agreement with the thread as a whole. I'll have to work on that.
I fully recognize the opposing position in this debate, I understand the thought behind it, I use to agree with it. But at this point, exactly as you point out, I highly disagree with it today. For the most part, I see people wanting to alter the definition of ownership for their own benefit to the detriment of the original creator. That the simple idea that a song can be perfectly copied countless times without damaging the original copy is somehow license to demand that the original creator hand over all their ownership rights without compensation is just wrong. It is as simple as the "black and white" example of stealing bread or any other physical object. I would give more credit to discussions about stealing bread because it's possible a human being stole it to survive, no one needs the latest hit song or movie to survive. If time and resources were spent in the creation of the product then I fail to understand why it's wrong for the creator to expect compensation, if they desire it.
Rational basis? What exactly is that in this case? Because I've never seen it. If anyone can give me a rational example of why the "I want it, it's easy to copy, therefore it should be mine" way of thinking is justified, then I'll reconsider my position.
However what about books or scientific papers which are hidden behind pay walls or just incredibly expensive.
The price of a good programming book is about £20. But when your monthly income is £300 that is a lot of money. Not to mention you have to pay electricity, gas, etc. and the prices for the utilities are not that much different.
So your options are:
1. buy the book and not eat for 2 weeks
2. pirate it
3. don't do anything and let your progress as a programmer be hindered by the lack of knowledge
That's what i call being forced. There's no situation where i can say i helped the author with the little i have and progressed in my development as a programmer.
If you give in to the system they set up knowledge become the privilege of the wealthy I agree that content creators need to live but the one size fits all approach is really f*ed up.
Open it up let people pay as much as they want or set different prices for different regions piracy will fall considerably if you do and for god sake don't limit peoples access to content by regions it's a sure way to increase piracy.
If only we had a global computer network by which you could find a much cheaper used copy. Or even a free loaner copy.
This is known as the 'Australian Tax' here, and is at the point where for some software products (Microsoft's dev tools, e.g.) it's cheaper to buy a budget flight to the USA, buy them there, then return.
Geographical pricing is morally indefensible.
And it's fucking ridiculous that you have to a saloon to watch a new movie and pay a ridiculous amount of money per person to watch a single movie.
I pirate all movies I can out of basic principal, they are not getting a dime extra from me since they continue with their harassment.
I am actually very pleased with Steam as it's an excellent service. But if I would want to play a game on let's say Origin I would definately pirate that game if it doesn't exist on Steam.
Do they target you specifically with this harassment or is it just in general for the population of where you live?
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
If I want a TV show - Say House of Cards - and it's not available, or it's available much later than elsewhere, or it's prohibitively more pricey... They want the show and the only reasonable way to get it... then it will "force" people who want it to Piracy.
I would very much like a Ferrari California. It's unlikely I will ever be able to afford one - it is prohibitively expensive for me. I am not being forced to steal it. I understand like a rational human being should that if I can't afford something or it isn't available to me and it isn't essential to my survival I have no right to take it. I know that physical theft analogies aren't very good when comparing to piracy but seriously - you are not being forced to do anything. You make a choice to steal it. Whether that's morally right or wrong is your decision to make.
Second, stealing implies that the person being stolen from can't access it anymore--which is clearly not the case here.
Stealing is the wrong framework to use here.
Otherwise, yes, this idea of being "forced" to pirate something they want but don't have easy access to seems a rather silly statement.
How is Steam DRM-free? You must first log in to your Steam account in order to play. Locked down. They seem to do it with very good UX, but it's DRM.
I think this negates the first part of your thesis: that DRM-free is picking up.
Although, if the developer/publisher doesn't include an installer of some sort within the game files reinstalling without Steam might be a bit tough. Makes me wish for the old days when you didn't need installers, you just zipped up the folder as a backup. Need to reinstall? Unzip to new folder.
Not really, there are Steam games with all kinds of additional vendor-specific DRM, including SecuROM.
Nobody would bother with torrents if there is a much easier and correctly priced alternative - when Steam started selling games in Bulgaria I stopped pirating games. When Spotify started selling in Bulgaria I stopped pirating music. When, eventually, Netflix starts selling in Bulgaria - I'll stop pirating movies.
The solution to piracy is simply knowing how to sell your product. DRM is an attempt at a technological solution to a non-technological problem.
You could make DRM "Kerckhoff hard", but you'd have to use a completely trusted architecture with secure boot and signed applications - which is not conicidentially where all major players are moving. Even then, there are a couple of loopholes (bugs/jailbreaks, you could tamper with the hardware, or you could just record the signal during playback ("analoge gap"))
And for that we are striving for newer technologies to close that gap from the analogue side. I'm not being entirely serious (yet), but thinking about Occulus Rift or Google Glass, etc.
Once we get our media/games to jack in directly to our brains, like all the cyberpunk novels prescribe, it's going to be pretty hard to get a tap between the analogue side :)
In your example, just make a computer that pretends to be your brain, and you'll get the data to post at Pirate Bay.
Steam is DRM.
Gaming is going towards more online by adding value (just like SAAS can't be pirated like traditional software) always online games by nature such as Battlefield 4 can't be pirated as well.
That's possibly why also Simcity decided to go online but the added value wasn't enough and caused a backslash.
Steam has its own DRM, and games distributed via steam may have additional third-party DRMs (including SecuROM and other similar shite).
IIRC GOG is only DRM-free games, although it is less convenient.
The only downside is the much smaller library than Steam.
The one really cool thing in Steam is savegame sync, but not even all games support it.
Yes, that was a very annoying discovery when I came back from holidays, after I'd started playing Rogue Legacy on my laptop and realised I had to hunt the savegame locations and pray they were compatible between the OSX and Windows versions of the game (they were)
Because the sames are stupidly, insanely reasonably priced. $5 for 20 hours of content? Games from time to time being 50% off? The ease of getting new content in a few clicks?
Contrast that with movies that are available for download at the same time they show up on DVD in stores: $15 for <2 hours of content that's probably not going to be that great, when my alternatives are to go to the movie store and pick it up for $2 as a rental or to pirate it for free.
The counter argument was that his small niche was not indicative of a large industry. What you are mentioning about Amazon is pretty enlightening for me to read. If you think about it, the lock-in you suffer from iTunes is an outdated and anti-consumer stance. It is absolutely unnecessary to force a purchaser to store his digital goods on the cloud.
That's not entirely true, I don't think? What about AACS, which uses a very clever master key / sub key + key revocation mechanism. People figured out exactly how it worked well before it was actually "broken" - and it was broken by stealing private keys from devices.
> For games, Steam makes it easy to avoid SecuROM Hell
Steam is DRM. Sure, it's fairly nice as DRM goes, but it is still DRM.
Depends on what you mean by DRM. Many Steam games run without Steam and only use it as a platform for digital distribution.
Which is why it doesn't work.
But it is very useful for excluding competitors and pissing off consumers.
The xbox actually had ~900 games and the GameCube had ~700.
This whole concept of DRM is just idiotic, its enough if one guy breaks the DRM and releases it. Why should I even bother booting a propertary OS (windows) and buying a stream everytime I want to watch something if I can just download a release and watch it, and its not like they can do anything against that either.
Why should I bother and buy HDCP capable new hardware, bother with proprietary NSA-compliant US software I much rather buy the DVD, trash it and just download it in a open and free format (I don't even bother with ripping (and breaking CSS) anymore).
Thinking isn't required to accept your paycheck -- in fact damaging the reputation of the W3C is their goal. There are fewer ways to fragment the standards of the internet better than undermining the integrity of the dominant standards committee by infiltrating it and proposing crap to be standardized.
Since the MPAA and her malicious allies are standing members then their propositions are considered seriously as a matter of policy, regardless of the stated goals and their actual effect.
Preventing piracy is at the bottom of a very long list of power that DRM provides, and maintaining control over your content distribution networks is at the top. The two have some overlap, but it's extremely limited (pirates don't pay, but content distributors do, so they will squeeze the distributors as much as they can).
And if you read the lists (as opposed to overly emotional hearsay calling them stupid), you'll realize their concern isn't so much piracy in and of itself (they recognize DRM can and will be broken — they aren't blind), but rather "casual piracy", as it were, ripping a disc having had it lent to you, for example. The aim is to make it sufficiently inconvenient to work-around that that doesn't happen, not that it avoids release on P2P networks and the like.
Even if you're right about the requirements (it's hard to say, what with their being confidential and all), is it worth breaking the Open Web to make it slightly harder for folks to pirate TV shows?
And if you're right, why then is every requirement short of non-user-modifiable client components being promptly shot down?
As gsnedders said, it doesn't matter. The EME spec is written and pushed by Google and Microsoft, and Apple is on board. Those companies have a strong financial interest to do what hollywood asks here, and together they account for a large majority of the browser market.
The only possible thing that could stop this is pressure on those browser vendors by users of those browsers - which means, for users to stop using them. So far, the public and even here on HN there is little interest in doing that.
All of this started with Netflix, and the outrage should be directed mostly at them (but definitely at W3C and the 3 companies, too).
Netflix got Microsoft (obviously, since Hastings is/was on their board), they got Google because of the Chromecast and perhaps some other previous partnerships, and also because Google is very interested in having content these days, which inevitably leads to them supporting the studios' corrupted ways to get the deals. And finally, I guess they got Apple, who saw Google and Microsoft was already on board, and thought it's a done deal, so why not?
I just can't believe that Netflix & Co would rather ruin the web than try to negotiate harder with the studios and make them understand DRM doesn't work, or just get some other kind of deal that's perhaps a little more profitable for the studios. I mean Google managed to give people the same "Match-like" service for free to the users, while Apple charges $25 a year, right? And Apple managed to make their music DRM-free years ago, no?
So I refuse to believe this is the only way around not using Silverlight and nothing can be done about it. There is a way - they just found it much easier to corrupt W3C, and I think this was MPAA's goal from the beginning. MPAA are the people who want to make IPSs all over the world police the web for them (ACTA/TPP), and want to be able to censor the websites they want off the web at will, with no judicial process (SOPA).
So you can only imagine what they have in mind for the browser vendors. Bringing DRM to the web is merely Step 1. Protocols like WebRTC's Data Channels that can make file-sharing easy through the browser, the way https://www.sharefest.me does it? Well, I guess that needs to be banned and discarded now. We can't have such piracy-aiding tools in the browsers, now can we? And so on.
It's clear MPAA runs the show already, if they got W3C, and 3 of the major browser vendors to do what they want. So expect more of this. MPAA member to take over after a "sudden" retiring of Tim Berners Lee from W3C in a couple of years? Wouldn't surprise me at this point.
People keep repeating this. How is it ruining the web to remove the requirement for crappy (and, at this point, end-of-lifed) browser plugins in order to play Netflix content? The only reason I, and I suspect most people, even bothered to install Silverlight was for Netflix. If I can get a pure HTML5 video-watching experience with no browser plugins, and get Netflix content, that is unambiguously a win for users everywhere.
You're acting like DRM didn't exist on the web prior to EME, and would continue not existing without EME. That's flat-out wrong. It existed and continues to exist using proprietary software that is shoved down users' throats.
Either way, the actual user experience is going to be a pure HTML5 player. If I have to install something first, that's unfortunate, but once it's installed I'll never have to think about it again, unlike the current situation where I'm confronted with the crappy plugin-based user experience every time I use the site.
Also, the actual user experience is not going to be a pure HTML5 player. Since this is intended to support hardware DRM that overlays the video onto the rendered page itself, sites have to assume the video is basically a rectangle crudely inserted into the page just like with plugins. They might be able to overlay stuff like controls on the top using HTML, but it's not clear if they'll even be able to rely on that.
I'll grant you that :)
Because then the Web will rely on proprietary binary crappy blobs in its basic functionality. Something which can't be implemented in an open source way. A plugin like Silverlight is no necessity for the web and if Silverlight is crappy and dying then that's really a problem of its users and Netflix. It shouldn't be my problem as a non-Netflix user. If the Web however starts to depend on such a crappy binary blob (which is the result of the EME proposal) then we all have to suffer and it will be a problem for us all.
In other words: If Netflix insists on DRM then they should write their own crappy plugins and applications but not ruin the open Web for all of us.
> You're acting like DRM didn't exist on the web prior to EME, and would continue not existing without EME.
No, we are not. We are just saying that EME will make the open Web depend on crappy proprietary binary blobs and hence no longer be open or libre.
> It existed and continues to exist using proprietary software that is shoved down users' throats.
EME is exactly that! It's proprietary crap software which is forced down everybody's throat because it makes the former open Web depend on it. It's not only something Netflix customers will have to deal with. It's something every web browser and web implementation has to deal with somehow. Which is impossible for open and libre implementations. Thus it will be the end of the open web.
Didn't Apple already ship an implementation of that API in Maverick?
There have been votes about whether this is in-scope of the AC. As you can tell by work continuing, the vote passed. How many abstained (explicitly or by not voting)? I cannot remember, and cannot check.
The requirement to merely make it more difficult, but not impossible, has been stated on several occasions. Forgive me for not looking up references for this, but it's almost 4am and I ought to sleep. :)
And they believe, rightly or not, non-user-modifiable client components are needed to make this sufficiently difficult — as otherwise someone could easily make a tool to make it sufficiently easy to violate the licensing terms (assuming, for now, all content is licensed — which is itself questionable; if it's not then in many jurisdictions they cannot place restrictions).
But I don't think it's an issue of what they believe, it's an issue of what the actual licensing terms are. Those are the real requirements, and so far they've not been made available.
When they accept organizations like MPAA on their board, no surprise this is the sort of decisions we get, and the sort of decisions we can expect for the web standards from now on.
W3C has been corrupted, and it's only going to get worse for the web if people keep listening to them.
The issue is the 'crisis of representation' - i.e., some voices are heard more clearly than others.
It's the same old regulatory capture game since before, but now it's divorced from government support.
"this reality reflect the reality"
please... why have a standard at all then. What a joke and perversion of terms. Orwell would be proud.
I don't understand why purists on the email list end up holding up something that will ultimately be a positive thing from a number of perspectives. Security, battery life, and script-able/touch friendly controls.
Communicating with the blob in an open-source project will be particularly fun.
The fundamental issue is this: up until now, anyone with the will to do so and a general purpose computer could build a browser that could display all the content on a W3C-standards-compliant website.
If EME + CDM are endorsed, then that will no longer be true. The Open Web will be a thing of the past.
That is why we're trying to prevent this from going forward in its current form.
Basically, it standardises just enough to give media providers the ability to claim they're using pure HTML5, without offering any more interoperability than if every browser vendor just had their own proprietary HTML5 extension for DRM. It's a PR stunt rather than a meaningful attempt at interoperability.
Executives are never satisfied, and the world doesn't revolve around them. Should we allow tapping of our communications because it satisfies our leaders.
> Security, battery life, and script-able/touch friendly controls.
And what do any of these have to do with DRM? In fact, I can guarantee DRM will offer more vulnerable entry points, require more battery on mobile devices, and not be script/ux friendly.
"Securing" a DRM plugin means "securing" the browser it runs in (otherwise it will be cracked by the browser lying to it about whether DRMed media is being played "securely"), which means "securing" the OS the browser runs on and so on...
So please don't (like a few on the W3 list) paint me as some sort of anticapitalist hippie tinfoil-hat wearer.
I know a fair bit about DRM myself, which is why I say it has no place in the W3C or the Open Web.
If it cannot be open, it cannot be part of browsers that are open, which a lot of browsers are.
Eventually this will change, but still.
That and of course, that NO single benefit is worth giving way to DRM. NONE. DRMs are a terrible invention from all points of view.
HTML DRM will not give you plugin-free or standardized playback. It will simply replace Flash/Silverlight with multiple custom and proprietary DRM black boxes that will likely have even worse cross-platform compatibility than the existing solutions. In other words, giving in to HTML DRM will only make the situation worse.
Some vendors will keep pushing for it, but at the very least we should not officially sanction what they are doing.
First of all the DRM proposal does NOT talk about plugins. The DRM support won't be plugins. Microsoft already implements the spec in their latest IE and it doesn't work with plugins at all. They ship Microsoft's DRM technology as the one and only available DRM. Which is perfectly fine according to the spec.
So do you understand? This moves DRM into the browser and not into a plugin. The plugin thing was what we had with Flash and Silverlight. Those things were plugins which are not part of the browser (well except Google decided to make Flash part of Chrome).
There could be no law to force browser vendors to ship DRM. It would not be legally possible. It is silly to think so. And if it gets proposed we can fight it then. We don't have to bend over backwards now to take the DRM bullshit that vile companies like Google are proposing.
If content providers want DRM then they can develop their own crappy DRM plugins and applications. But they should under no circumstances be allowed to ruin the open web.
But it is not ridiculous thought for this to plugin based, especially if your only example is Microsoft. I suppose Apple and Google will build it into their browsers since they support this. I suppose it's ridiculous that I said it but it's the solution you support by your very own words? If the content providers make their own crappy plugins the browser needs a way to communicate to that crappy plugin, which is exactly what I've always understood this proposal to be and exactly what I stated.
You don't think that an industry with the backing that the entertainment industry can't get this done? It's silly to think that? Where do you think the DMCA came from in the first place?
Now, I'm only talking about DRM for video and audio elements. If you're talking about DRM across the board for every aspect of what makes a web page, then I'm with you.
Well, as I say, the actual requirements that lead to the proposal of EME
would be a start. This is how it looks to those who don't agree that
EME is a good fit with the Open Web:
- 'big content' has certain requirements relating to preventing users
copying data streams
- they won't make those requirements public (as you've said, the
agreements are confidential)
- their licensees propose a technical solution that is unacceptable to
many others because it necessitates the use of non-user-modifiable
- all proposed alternatives (e.g. FOSS DRM, server-side watermarking,
client-side watermarking, no DRM at all) are shot down as being either
too expensive or inadequate to the (secret) requirements
In a normal software project, I'd take an apparently insoluble conflict
(the requirement for non-user-modifiable client components) to mean that
we have done a poor job of determining requirements.
Hence my request for either a real user to talk to (e.g. an MPAA rep) or
the actual requirements docs, which you've told me are confidential.
And that sets off my spidey-senses ... something is not quite right
A third party solution that they can't get hold of because the 'official' one only runs on windows and intel, and the ps4.
Plus, from what I've read Chrome should start losing market share immediately because it already has a form of EME implemented. All these people in an uproar over the W3C's decision should be switching to something else to show their concern.