×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

DRM Has Always Been a Horrible Idea

Unknown Lamer posted about 4 months ago | from the except-when-gabe-does-it dept.

DRM 281

An anonymous reader writes "For years, the reaction of the big entertainment companies to digital disruption has been to try and restrict and control, a wrong-headed approach that was bound to backfire. But the entertainment companies were never known for being forward thinking whether it was radio in the 20s or cassette tapes in the 70s or VCRs in the 80s or Napster in the 90s. The reaction was the always the same. Take a defensive position and try to battle the disruptive force. And it never worked. And DRM was perhaps the worst reaction of all, place restrictions on your content that punish the very people who were willing to pay for it, while others were free to use it without restriction. It was an approach that never made much sense, and it's good to know that mounting evidence proves that's the case."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

281 comments

No Shit (4, Funny)

thatkid_2002 (1529917) | about 4 months ago | (#45710213)

Sherlock.

Re:No Shit (2, Funny)

dgatwood (11270) | about 4 months ago | (#45710283)

In other news, the sky is blue.

Re:No Shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45710383)

No, no, no, no. The sky APPEARS to be blue.

Re:No Shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45710581)

Yeah, that's how colors work.

Re:No Shit (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45710663)

No, that's how semantics works.

Re:No Shit (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45710411)

No shit Sherlock indeed.

Re:No Shit (5, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 4 months ago | (#45710473)

The news is not that DRM is bad. The news is that people outside of IT are realizing it.

Re:No Shit (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45710755)

when valve goes out of business I'll believe that. DRM is fine as long as it doesn't inconvenience the end user.

Just because some DRM doesn't bug you does not mea (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45710985)

I use Steam. I don't like that it inconveniences me. Offline mode works most of the time, but when it doesn't, I get f---ed! I realize most folks have internet available all the time, but I work in remote locations, and often don't. Last winter I was one week into a four week trip when Steam decided it would not work without going online. Fortunately I had some non-Steam games and was not completely out of luck. Leaves me feeling I would be better off pirating.

Re:No Shit (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45711105)

Steam does inconveniences, though. I've bought some games on gog.com as they have lots of offers right now (which I wouldn't know hadn't they given out the 2D Fallout games for free), and it is a much better experience than that of Steam. And I've spent a lot on Steam, I don't hate it. You can download from your browser or from a dozen free as in freedom download clients (for GNU/Linux and without a GUI, even), and when you want to play the game you simply run it, no third party software or Internet connection necessary.

Just because it sells doesn't means it's good. People will buy dog shit if you give them a 75% discount and throw in some achievements.

Re:No Shit (3, Interesting)

FunkDup (995643) | about 4 months ago | (#45710897)

DRM is bad.

I was watching this recently posted video [youtube.com] of Ray Kurzweil interviewing Robert Freitas, a "nanobot theoretician", about the current state of nanotech. Freitas suggested the use of DRM techniques as a way of preventing the malicious use of nanotechnology. Seems like a "good" application to me. There's another video [youtube.com] of RK interviewing Eric Drexler whichh is also interesting.

Re:No Shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45710957)

DRM is bad. The news is that people outside of IT are realizing it.

IT is what CS is called inside of business schools.
IT is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Re:No Shit (0)

Smauler (915644) | about 3 months ago | (#45711215)

DRM is going to be around for a long while longer. The entire notion and point of the new consoles is centred about them not being PCs.... but they are essentially just miniature PCs, designed for the living room. If they were open now, Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo would lose money, but they don't, because they MAKE PEOPLE PAY FOR THE RIGHT TO HAVE A GAME ON THEIR CONSOLE.

Sorry for shouting, but this is how they make money. This is why market presence is imperative.

Personally, I'll probably get a PS4 and buy a few games, and then go back to playing on my PC, just like I did with my PS3.

Artsy types (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | about 4 months ago | (#45711025)

Artsy people usually don't want to be confused with facts. So no matter how much evidence there is, it won't make any difference to the publishers.

Re:No Shit (2)

wbr1 (2538558) | about 4 months ago | (#45711079)

Did you buy or pirate that Sherlock. If the DRM were intact you couldn't even use the title, therefore we are issuing a cease and desist letter as well as requesting that formal charges be filed.

Anonymous Reader (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45710227)

And anonymous reader posts a piece with the only link leading to Ron Miller's (Whoever that is) opinion on his blog.

Anonymous read -- Ron Miller, is that you trying to drum up traffic to your blog?

Re:Anonymous Reader (1)

icebike (68054) | about 4 months ago | (#45710341)

As if a blog site posting will have any influence of the DRM imposing bean counters in big media.

One suspects that if they didn't have DRM to fall back on they would have long ago insisted on audit rights to our computers, instead of just now getting around to demanding it.

Re:Anonymous Reader (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45710899)

With the fact that a lot of EULAs allow for phoning home, how do we know that audit "rights" are not in place? In most iDevices, who the hell knows what is running on the magic black box chips outside of Apple, Foxconn and Chinese intel agencies.

Run a MMO, and "audit rights" are already given over, which if violated result in insta-bans, be it WoW's Warden, or similar.

Even with DRM, audit rights have been given over in many, many ways (WGA is another example.)

Re:Anonymous Reader (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45710599)

And anonymous reader posts a piece with the only link leading to Ron Miller's (Whoever that is) opinion on his blog.

Anonymous read -- Ron Miller, is that you trying to drum up traffic to your blog?

That's pretty much what has to be happening; the link hits a splash page that you can skip; classic stuff for ad revenue and/or traffic analysis. Based on my personal experience, Slashdot's reputation about coverage isn't a myth. Anytime a post was made under my pseudonym, my web site stats would go through the roof.

The best example during the last couple of years was when a comment resulted in 120k views in just under two hours. That's just from a sincerely made non-troll post showing some meaningful effort, whether it was right or wrong, from someone who's no-one as far as Slashdot or the rest of world is concerned.

Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45710239)

Wow mister obvious! I never would have guessed that!

um, yeah... so? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45710267)

I expected a blog post with lots of citations and historical information... instead it's just some random guy's opinion... Hey, I have opinions too! Maybe I should submit them as slashdot stories?

Re:um, yeah... so? (4, Informative)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 4 months ago | (#45710469)

Mounting evidence at Baen Books.

http://baen.ghostwheel.com/#RIAA [ghostwheel.com]

The more stuff they give away, the more money they make. Rest in peace, Jim Baen.

Re:um, yeah... so? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45711065)

You can submit whatever you want, but they'll only run if they're politically correct here.

Otherwise it'll disappear from the submission queue without a trace within 3 minutes tops. "An obvious troll (from the record industry or whatever)."

Define worked (5, Insightful)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 4 months ago | (#45710281)

Last time I checked Disney was still raking in the cash and redefining copyright length to ensure their cash flow.

DRM does not work for a specific product, but backed with a vast array of lawyers and donations to lawmakers, it manages to persist and have a fairly high ROI - enough to give major bumps up to CEO pay.

Will it be defeated eventually? Sure.

Will it be defeated earlier by those who tend not to pay tons of money without thinking? Sure.

But it is intended to be an irritant to defeating reasonable copying. And on that score, for those markets that have the money to pay easily and the attention span of a gnat, it works fairly well.

Personally, I hate it, but that's another matter.

Re:Define worked (0)

TheRealDevTrash (2849653) | about 4 months ago | (#45710549)

Disney is doing no such thing. Listen. Go get your own PAC and go elect someone who will do your bidding. Sorry that guy's not Ron Paul. Someone more mainstream.

Re:Define worked (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45710811)

Copyright Term Extension Act [wikipedia.org]

The Walt Disney Company lobbied extensively on behalf of the Act, which delayed the entry into the public domain of the earliest Mickey Mouse movies, leading to the nickname "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act".

Patents; Congress has extended its protection for Goofy, Gershwin and some moguls of the Internet. [nytimes.com]

On Oct. 7, a year and a half after the Copyright Term Extension Act was first introduced and after intense lobbying for it from powerful copyright holders like the Walt Disney Company and Time Warner Inc., Congress passed the bill and extended the life of copyright protection for the creators of original works. Since 1976, copyrights have been good for the life of an artist plus 50 years.

Re:Define worked (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 4 months ago | (#45710843)

So the only way to have rights in this country is to be rich? We're free until someone starts buying off the government while someone else grows its size and scope.

Re:Define worked (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45710989)

Mainstream = corrupt. Haven't you figured that out yet?

Re:Define worked (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 4 months ago | (#45710895)

it is not DRM which is ensuring disneys profits. if it were, they would not need so long copyrights now would they?

DRM was always irrelevant for disneys business model. their model is built around the copyright laws and not on if copying is practical.

you can quite easily make your own mickey mouse pictures, mickey mouse trousers and whatever, no magic drm is stopping that.. but if you try selling those trousers then you're going to pay the man. that is the business model.

drm never was the thing that made the profits for disney.. they sure spent lots in license fees to drm manufacturers though directly and indirectly....

What is this DRM of which you speak? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45710303)

And will it stop me from downloading music and films from the internet?

Yada Yada Yada (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 4 months ago | (#45710307)

Yet another random opinion piece on how DRM sucks? I'm as anti-DRM as they come but stories like this were old a decade ago. No maybe if the article was something Jack Valenti wrote before he croaked, that would be worth talking about. But this is just another drop in the ocean.

Re:Yada Yada Yada (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 4 months ago | (#45710545)

Except that DRM is growing fast. OId story but more relevant than ever. More services using DRM, more restrictions, more control, more customers completely oblivious about it, and more customers who are actually fans of it (they are so happy to have online access that they cheer on companies that have DRM).

Re:Yada Yada Yada (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45710673)

customers who are actually fans of it (they are so happy to have online access that they cheer on companies that have DRM).

Those two things are not the same thing at all. That would be exactly like saying people were fans of Windows Genuine Advantage because they used Windows XP/Vista to play video games. They either don't know any better or aren't bothered enough (yet) by the drawbacks to find whatever alternatives may exist and find out the alternatives have their own drawbacks (installing non-stock software; infringement notices/suits).

DRM is a stupid name (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45710359)

They have won half of the battle by getting you to call it "Digital Rights Management" a term made up by the entertainment industry.

Re:DRM is a stupid name (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45710475)

What? I thought DRM stood for Digital Restriction Management.

Re:DRM is a stupid name (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45710693)

> What? I thought DRM stood for Digital Restriction Management.

No, it stands for "Device for Raking in Money."

Re:DRM is a stupid name (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45710841)

No, it stands for "Donkey Rapes Man"

captcha: "terror" --oh captcha, you funny.

Re:DRM is a stupid name (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45710915)

DRM: Defending our Recording Monopoly

(captcha: abysmal)

They want complete control. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45710377)

The reason we have piracy; when Copyright lasts longer than a single human lifetime, nothing ever produced during your lifetime will ever be released to enrich the public domain, therefor there is absolutely no benefit for an individual to participate in copyright.

Netflix, Amazon, Steam, Hulu; these are a ruse to weaken and ultimately control piracy. They License for a set term their works to said services and can Revoke those contracts at any time as has been demonstrated today by the lively article about Disney removing already-paid-for streaming content from Amazon.

It isn't "Mainstream Media" it's "Media Monopoly"; Get it Straight and stop using their words to make their crimes sound better than they actually are.

Because those works cannot ever be copied, there will always be a dwindling supply; Imagine Star Wars, Ghost in the Shell, or Iron Man being forgotten and all copies of them being tossed down the memory hole 100 years from now. This has already happened with old movies from the 30's through the 70's and is starting to happen to what was made in the 80's and 90's.

Re:They want complete control. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45710739)

Since they were able to change the terms without a public vote (there have been many extensions granted) why should they expect anyone else to agree with the new terms?

Strip it, baby ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45710387)

Just like a hot chick when you get her in the car outside the bar :

Strip it and RIP it.

DRM the only long-term answer. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45710393)

Popular downloading sites have shown that people won't buy if they're given a choice. Indeed, compare the number of console games sold to the number of PC games sold, or how many people go to the theater vs. watching Game of Thrones.

Sadly, trust doesn't sell copies. If anything media should go back to requiring a physical copy in hand to enjoy the content, as it's the only way people will put value on the content.

Re:DRM the only long-term answer. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45710493)

The rise of netflix says you are completely full of shit.

But. You knew that. You're just here because you are paid to shill a really shit position.

Still wrong tho.

Re:DRM the only long-term answer. (1)

chromas (1085949) | about 4 months ago | (#45710751)

Let's extend this logic to other things. PC sales are more numerous than Mac sales, therefore Macs are being pirated. Right? Is Game of Thrones in theaters? Do you get HBO for free?

Did your forget Don't copy that floppy, or do you think copy protection wasn't yet invented in the days of physical media because it was somehow buttmagically not copyable?

Re:DRM the only long-term answer. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45710861)

Trust itself may not sell copies, but mistrust will undoubtedly cost you sales. If people aren't even willing to listen to you in the first place because they don't trust you, then you have no chance without somehow locking customers in. Which is in itself evil and reeks of anti-competitiveness.

Re:DRM the only long-term answer. (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 4 months ago | (#45710877)

No. Since it's beaten eventually. DRM's not even about making the initial sales anymore.. It's about retaining control, post-sale, as a means to rake in even more cash, by protecting their future, inferior products from being trampled by their existing ones. If a useful feature becomes a problem for their new/current business model, it gets removed and the users are shit out of luck. MMO/SaaS is DRM just like the the most invasive versions of starforce, TAGES, or safedisc. Fuck them all.

Trust may not sell copies, but DRM destroys trust, both in the vendor, and in the product's availability post-purchase.

Re:DRM the only long-term answer. (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about 4 months ago | (#45711055)

Damn, and here was me thinking that there were plenty of places you could pay to stream music and movies - places that are making decent coin. Or do you think they have managed to shut down every single torrent/file sharing site?

Re:DRM the only long-term answer. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45711081)

gog.com pushes that argument into the dustbin where it belongs.

DRM is technology misapplied (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45710421)

FTA:

And the content could be stolen because, of course, DRM, like all technology, could be broken.

Incorrect. Some technology really can't be broken -- assuming that it's been applied correctly.

Here's a better way to say it:

"DRM, like all misapplied technology, could be broken. DRM uses encryption technology in an incorrect way: it gives the key to the attacker."

Re:DRM is technology misapplied (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 4 months ago | (#45710891)

Another way to look at it: it attempts to withhold the key from the legitimate user, while the pirate has the skills (or a crack written by someone who does) to strip it away.

Re:DRM is technology misapplied (4, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | about 4 months ago | (#45711077)

DRM is misapplied by design. Because my computer/reading device has to be able to decode it. Therefore I can decode it. It's just a question of figuring out how, be it scanning memory or playing around with a soldering iron on the motherboard. And of course only one person has to figure out how to break it. Then everyone can break it.

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45710461)

VCRs in the 80s

VCRs are from the 70s, kiddo.

Re:Huh? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45710525)

the debate from widespread useage and timeshifting came in the 80's, if you want to argue videotape has been around since the 50's grouchy old fart

It always made sense (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45710501)

For someone concerned about this quarter's profits and protecting their existing business model, it _always_ made sense. A modest investment in DRM protect this project's profits. And you could point to other projects that made far less profit _for your projects' mangers_ as examples of where the lack of DRM hurt their profits. It's only in the longer term, year after loss of business due to the most burdensome of DRM, such as Sony's built-in rootkits on CDROM media, that it could be shown to cost business. And let's be honest: most of the people who amass large Bittorrent libraries were never going to pay for all that music, or all those videos, anyway, so it's not as if those "lost sales" were going to ever exist as sales, anyway: most people will never all watch all the media they've stolen. So the "losses" without DRM are also quite exaggerated.

There are times, and environments, where DRM has been very successfully used. Large scale commercial software, such as clusters of VMware servers, or high cost software such MRI analysis tools, have been very successfully DRM managed. Red Hat's strange "it's yum, but not really" licensing to get updates? That has blown goats. Anyone sane using Red Hat makes one local registered and runs a local yum mirror from it, using that for all their other hosts, instead of that butt slow and bandwidth sucking "RHN/yum" mess. And no, "Red Hat Staellite Server" is a messy mirror of the same butt slow RHN mess. Calling it "spacewalk" does not help, it's a lot of "open the pod bay doors, Hal" arguing with the licensing management.

Re:It always made sense (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 4 months ago | (#45710995)

The types of businesses using that software would never pirate because the risk of losing their business to lawsuits is much more likely and punitive than it is to just pay the fees. The DRM just gets in the way of legitimate use solely to create artificial market segmentation (oh you want 1000 users AND the 'right' to save to a database? now it's suddenly $40000, instead of $4000 for the same product).

Old skool history of copy protection (5, Insightful)

Neo-Rio-101 (700494) | about 4 months ago | (#45710515)

We don't have to look far into the past as to what happens when DRM enters the picture.

Take the humble Commodore 64. The most common home micro of the 80s.
Lots of users. Lots of software. Lots of piracy.
What happened in the end is that lots of companies making software made lots of money, despite the piracy, until the computer faded into obscurity with a dwindling userbase that had moved on to more powerful computers.

All DRM "disk copy protection" was eventually broken, and just about all game software ever released for the computer is downloadable online (you know where to look). The end result is that we have a nice digital archive, complete with emulators, left for historians or anyone who wants to relive what it was like to use the machine in the hight of it's heyday (or simply to see what all the fuss was about playing "Impossible Mission" or something)

If it wasn't for the pirates and crackers willing to ignore the ridiculous copyright law time extensions, copy programs to different countries where they were not available for sale (over the pre-internet BBSes) chances are we might not have a digital archive, or at least be missing important bits. By the time the copyrights expire, the magnetic media, if anyone still had any left, would be corrupted by bit rot, and the equipment needed to read it may not be in a working state or readily available.

So the Commodore 64 avoids a digital dark age, but I have my doubts about some heavily DRMed content going forward.
In many cases, if something is heavily DRMed and people do not make the effort to break it, it will likely be lost to the digital dustbin of time.

Re:Old skool history of copy protection (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45710563)

In many cases, if something is heavily DRMed and people do not make the effort to break it, it will likely be lost to the digital dustbin of time.

A fitting end, obscurity.

Re:Old skool history of copy protection (4, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 4 months ago | (#45710671)

A fitting end, obscurity.

Only if you believe that creative works are owned by their creators rather than become part of the culture once published and thus owned by everyone in society. If you believe the later, than any creative work lost to DRM is a loss to all of us.

Re:Old skool history of copy protection (1)

Neo-Rio-101 (700494) | about 4 months ago | (#45710821)

In many cases, if something is heavily DRMed and people do not make the effort to break it, it will likely be lost to the digital dustbin of time.

A fitting end, obscurity.

Yes, but even failures have a right to be preserved.... so we can try to understand why it was a failure.

Besides, obscure LPs often get remixed into popular dance music.

Re:Old skool history of copy protection (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45710705)

Exactly, it's called Copy Protection. Only hipsters call it DRM.

Re:Old skool history of copy protection (4, Interesting)

Mandrel (765308) | about 4 months ago | (#45710827)

Take the humble Commodore 64. The most common home micro of the 80s. Lots of users. Lots of software. Lots of piracy. What happened in the end is that lots of companies making software made lots of money, despite the piracy, until the computer faded into obscurity with a dwindling userbase that had moved on to more powerful computers.

I've never owned a game console, but watching things it seemed to me that the reason the Playstation greatly outsold the Nintendo 64 was because the Playstation used crackable CDs while the N64 used cartridges. The weak DRM was a winner for Sony, while the game makers had their piracy losses offset by the bigger ecosystem.

However I don't think this is a good argument that content makers lose more than they gain from DRM. Weak DRM can be a net gain for publishers if some of the gains had by making piracy inconvenient is given back to users as lower prices or automatic updates.

Re:Old skool history of copy protection (1)

Neo-Rio-101 (700494) | about 4 months ago | (#45710851)

That's a salient point.

Many people who bought a C64 back in the day mostly had a collection of pirate disks, with a few original games thrown in the mix.
One can argue that people bought a C64 because of the huge pirate game library available... (but then that was true for the other micros of the period too, so it's not the whole story)

Interestingly enough, even the few original disks in the collection made enough money for the software companies way back when.

DRM has driven piracy for decades (4, Informative)

onyxruby (118189) | about 4 months ago | (#45710571)

DRM is probably the single greatest driver of privacy that their is. It has never particurlarly been very good at stopping people from accessing content. What is has been good at is creating artificial barriers that allow for greater market segmentation. It does things like allow for different regions for DVD's and Blu Ray's or making photoshop so expensive in Australia it used to cheaper to fly to America, buy a copy and fly back. DRM just has to be enough to make something clearly illegal and frustrate most users.

It gives an excuse to force people to provide marketing information to be able to use a product that they paid cash for. It creates a market in file trading from unusable media is used to justify the greatest land grab of civil rights in history (Trans Pacific Partnership AKA SOPA 2). DRM is an excuse to change the very concept of "I own that' to "I lease that".

You pair that with laws that will put people who break it into prison and now you have a society that is firmly in the grip of IP based companies. Throw in the patent wall that makes an upstart like Compaq all but impossible nowadays and you have an oligarchy that can effectively never be challenged due to insurmountable legal costs. You can't go around them with DRM or you go to prison, you can't fight it in court because it's a treaty and you can't beat them as a competitor. As long as they don't become a monopoly they are untouchable for decades at best.

Just remember that Obama was the president that drove the greatest takeaway of civil rights in history...

Re:DRM has driven piracy for decades (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45710743)

you had me up til you threw president obama into this. he has absolutely nothing to do with drm, big media companies' use of it, or with the laws (and punishments) currently on the books that make it illegal to break it.

Re:DRM has driven piracy for decades (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 4 months ago | (#45710927)

Really? The democrats are in bed with the industry...I am sure he has voted yes for a bunch of that law.

And that... is why you fail (0)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 4 months ago | (#45710999)

you had me up til you threw president obama into this.

Yeah DRM is evil! It must be stopped!

"Well the Democrats are involved in pushing it on you to a greater degree than ever before thanks to money flowing in from hollywood"

*blank stare*

Say what now? I just want to stop DRM! And vote for Democrats 'cause they so awesome!

Re:DRM has driven piracy for decades (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45711003)

Yeah, it's the DMCA that makes breaking DRM illegal and that was almost 100% Bill Clinton. Some % belong to the lobbyists I guess... fuck those guys.

Re:DRM has driven piracy for decades (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 4 months ago | (#45711071)

I agree. While stuff like the TPP have been attempted under Obama's reign, I don't see any particularly new legal successes for the copyright cartels during his time in office. If there are any, I doubt they are significantly greater than what's come before, like the DMCA or the extradition of the DrinkOrDie member from Australia to the US.

Re:DRM has driven piracy for decades (1)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | about 4 months ago | (#45711047)

> "DRM is probably the single greatest driver of privacy that their is"

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

I don't know what the rest of you are thinking... (1)

Anathem (1983388) | about 4 months ago | (#45710631)

...but DRM is amazing! I mean, CDs last forever, Tapes last several generations... but DRM licenses die with you! You can sell the same thing to EVERY freaking generation!!!

2003 called, they want their article back (1, Interesting)

brit74 (831798) | about 4 months ago | (#45710637)

Yawn. Anther anti-DRM rant on Slashdot. The summary is boring and looks like Slashdot just randomly picked a comment from any article on piracy from within the past 15 years and reposted it. The article itself isn't even all that well thought out. Honestly, it looks kind-of amateurish. It talks about how revenues went up after DRM was removed. Of course, it ignores the fact that music has always had a giant analog hole, so there's an easy way to bypass any DRM.

It'd be nice if these articles were a little less narrow minded, a little less circle-jerkish, and would, at least, acknowledge the fact that piracy has been a huge problem for the industry. Looking at the industry's decline in revenue, I can't say that Jack Valenti's statement about the Boston Strangler looks all that silly anymore. See this graph to understand what I'm talking about (and this graph is a few years old, I'm sure it looks even worse than this, now): http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/4d5ea2acccd1d54e7c030000/music-industry.jpg [businessinsider.com]

Re:2003 called, they want their article back (2)

Todd Knarr (15451) | about 4 months ago | (#45710809)

The thing is, it's been just as much of a problem since, well, just about forever. Think back to how they railed against DVD burners, CD burners, the VCR, hell even cassette tapes. And yet the industry survived all of them by releasing content. You want to know what's killing the industry? Go read this article [boingboing.net]. Now, how enthusiastic do you think your average person's going to be about buying content when they've just been reminded that the companies "selling" it to them will jerk it away the moment it suits them? I sure wouldn't put my hard-earned money into that, at least not at the prices they want to charge. Charge me the kind of price the video rental place would charge and I'll think about it.

The music and movie industries are in decline simply because they won't provide content their customers want in the form their customers want it. And of course that results in them going out of business. You don't want to sell what people want to buy, don't be surprised when people take their business elsewhere. It doesn't take an MBA to figure that one out.

Re:2003 called, they want their article back (2)

jd2112 (1535857) | about 4 months ago | (#45710901)

You don't want to sell what people want to buy, don't be surprised when people take their business elsewhere. It doesn't take an MBA to figure that one out.

No, Apparently it takes someone who isn't an MBA to figure that one out.

Re:2003 called, they want their article back (0)

epyT-R (613989) | about 4 months ago | (#45710965)

No. Not piracy. Reality. They want a business model that no longer applies to current realities, so they want the government to prop them up. Fuck that. It's time for those 'super stars' to realize they're not worth the millions of dollars they're paid..

I'm okay with most DRM (1, Insightful)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | about 4 months ago | (#45710709)

Because most of it's pathetic and can be stripped from the content in seconds. But the suits think it's effective so they release content with their laughable controls. I buy their content, strip it clean, and access the content how I want to. I buy movies, rip the content off the disc, and store it on my media server in a platform-agnostic format that I can play on my media player, laptop, desktop, tablet, phone, etc. I buy ebooks, strip the drm, store it on my media server, and read it on my computer, tablet, or phone.

Without the false sense of security created by crappy DRM, there would be a lot less content available.

It neverd worked but sure as hell delayed it (1)

Daniel Hoffmann (2902427) | about 4 months ago | (#45710781)

And delaying it increased their profits, so all their actions are really in the best interest of all*.

* Of their shareholders.

Evidence that indicates DRM is ineffective (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45710815)

will no more change the business practices of those who believe in it than would evidence indicating a theology's internal contradictions change the minds of that faith's adherents. The DRM believers will go out of business still clinging to their belief that 'they wuz robbed'.

Gamers don't care (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45710829)

Except that gamers who use Steam are generally conscious that the vast majority of games use DRM, but give it a pass because Valve is "nice".

Re:Gamers don't care (1)

dadelbunts (1727498) | about 4 months ago | (#45711161)

Most people who use Steam dont even see it as DRM but just a content delivery system. The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.

DRM is simply an artificial barrier to entry (1)

giorgist (1208992) | about 4 months ago | (#45710983)

DRM is simply an artificial barrier to entry. A good investment requires a company with a good product and a high barrier to entry. In the 80's they had it good. It was too hard to copy movies and songs. Then it started becoming easier and easier and now it is almost as easy as a click and watch, or click and listen any content. So they are trying to stuff the rabbit back in the hat after it has procreated. It is game over.

DRM does work, when done right (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45711027)

DRM only works when it's not intrusive, prohibitive, or makes you feel like a criminal. Good examples: Steam, iTunes - both have DRM in them, but both of them work, pretty much charge a fair price, and above all *they make it easy* Bad Examples: Anything Sony does (yeah ok, I'm being facetious, but it's not far off), DVD/BD zone-locking - that's just greed at work. Worst Examples: What happened with Bioshock 2 (?)... "no, you have installed this three times, you must be a pirate, yarrr!" - pretty much any DRM system used by EA (SimCity anyone?), Oh and Assasin's Creed on the PC when the authentication servers went down.

Re:DRM does work, when done right (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 4 months ago | (#45711097)

Don't forget SaaS.. that's also bad DRM. It takes user control away thereby making their own livelihoods dependent on the continued existence and congruent interests of the vendor.

Re:DRM does work, when done right (1)

Wycliffe (116160) | about 3 months ago | (#45711191)

>
> DRM only works when it's not intrusive, prohibitive, or makes you feel like a criminal.
>

Even then it still scares away customers. I'm always reluctant to buy music, movies or even apps as I'm always worried that
something will change and render all my "possessions" null. Buying from a big name that is less likely to go out of business
helps but even amazon has voided previously purchased stuff. The most ironic being the book 1984:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090717/1559425587.shtml [techdirt.com]

I pirate after I bought my first BluRay (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45711043)

I purchased Futurama on BluRay after having purchased a reader for my PC. I was unable to watch the discs because of copy protection.

This is the best argument for NOT paying for the content ever invented, that's for damn sure.

Evidence?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45711217)

"mounting evidence proves that's the case"

Since when does "Evidence" carry any weight? Religion? Effectiveness of Death Penalty? Fill in your favorite Blank?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...