threads in this post ^ .... That was kinda funny.
threads in this post ^ .... That was kinda funny.
[QUOTE=Luke;330468][QUOTE=brosis;330441]There are people who understand; and there are people who get DRM prescribed in form of the law sooner or later. The problem is - both live in same country, and people who understand don't want their fair use rights to be cut by DRM, which grows as result of actions of second group type.And that is exactly why they are trying to cripple the internet. They don't see it as a new opportunity and marketplace, they see it as a threat to their dominance.
There is another option: There is no law requiring you to consume commercial content AT ALL. Just like you can run Linux instead of pirating Windows, you can watch non-monetized, user-created content instead of Hollywood movies. You can play 0ad instead of a similar game bought from Steam. I'm not saying Linux should try to force out Steam, I'm just saying you do in fact have a choice.
There is even music created by artists who are just as good as anyone who ever had a recording contract, but could never get one. In fact, the vast majority of all music and video (including work never distributed at all) is created by private people with no realistic option of ever monetizing it anyway, created for reasons other than for money. Some of those artists are damned good, ask ANY small-time musician to play you a recording of some virtuoso he knows from the band scene. I've seen guitarists who could play like Yngwie Malmsteen playing in basements!
The more they screw with fair use, the more people will turn their backs on their entire industry and all of its products, just like the growing movement
to cancel cable TV and disconnect from pay TV bills. Enough harassment, and people will cancel their online subscriptions, cancel cable, even stop going to the movies if theaters want to search belongings or something. If I cannot have a copy of a song, I want to ensure that I never, ever hear it, meaning I would have to turn off the radio. Much of that sort of thing and Hollywood would roll over and sink beneath the waves.
Preventing piracy does NOT ensure revenue, they'd have to make it illegal to distribute your own music without a contract, or to distribute video from your own camera without going through a Hollywood studio. They can't watermark content they don't own.
DRM became succesful because of the paranoia of the gatekeepers. People like you forget that this is not a new phenomenom. This didn't just start happening with the internet, it's just the latest chapter in a long story. Back in the 60s and 70s, when C-cassettes were becoming popular, the record industry was up in arms, and the arguments were EXACTLY THE SAME as they now make about the internet, torrents, piracy, what they now use to justify DRM. They said, "why would anyone buy our albums when they can just record their own tapes!" "The C-cassette is destroying the music industry!" "Think of the poor artists!" and so on.
And that's not even the end of it, it goes back all the way to sheet music, printed books... heck, probably the people who used to chisel clay tablets complained how papyrus was destroying the industry...
The thing is, the arguments against sharing are always false. They are lies, they are justifications the big moneybags make to justify their continued existence: after all, they have a cushy job, they've enjoyed their position as gatekeeper for decades, they've been able to control the market with an iron grip, control the market entry, no one could become a succesful artist without them... Back in the early 90s, if you wanted to publish your music, what could you do? Record your own C-cassette and sell it on the streets? Or if you wanted to self-publish a book, you had the option of... going to the library xerox machine and photocopying a bunch of sheets printed with your dot matrix printer, then hand-stapling them together and trying to sell them to people on the streets. People would look at you like you're a crazy person.
That's exactly the situation the record labels, publishers, movie studios and big software houses (Microsoft, Apple) want to return to. They want the control of the markets back... back to the situation where all our entertainment basically comes from one monolithic source, in a top-down model, everyone becomes a passive consumer of pre-chewed content...
Worst case scenario:
1. Microsoft gets market dominance, forces free alternatives out of the markets with lobbying and patent threats, keeps Apple around to avoid monopoly charges
2. Microsoft implements Trusted Computing, a scheme where every computer user is no longer in control of their computer, instead, the OS decides what is appropriate to do and what is not... basically, DRM hard-coded in the OS itself
3. There is now an avenue for content streaming and buying, all on their terms, riddled with the worst DRM ever - you can't copy files because the OS won't let you
4. Then, the copyright mafia manages to pass a law or trade treaty that cripples the internet for good. They implement a legislative scheme where no one can afford to release content on the internet, except those affiliated with the copyright mafia, eliminating the threat of self-publishing
5. Torrents are the last vestige of freedom, but not many people can use them, since the DRM in windows won't let you use a torrent client... some people probably try to fight this underground, maintaining their underground Linux distros that only stay functional by violating a bunch of software patents
And there you have it, that's the future the copyright mafia is looking after...
In case one IS popular or unique, there will be specific userbase* already waiting on torrents - so *marketing by torrenting* is not needed and they employ defensive methods (like poisoning, honeypotting etc).
*The specific userbase can be split into freebie wanters - children and people unable to pay for various reasons. For that, there is DRM time-locking tactic.
This is also the position where it is *worth the effort* to crack DRM in order to place hidden backdoor and distribute to lusers(misspelled on purpose).
So, in sum up, a lot crap just for fighting whom copies belong instead of constructive attitude producer-supporter you see on commercial opensource projects. And services like steam are also different from scheme above, although not by much - but at least they provide some additional value instead of plain copy-fighting, their servers are long supported and their platform is not infecting the OS down the guts.
And I also think people should have right to demand money for their work, so they ask money for development and not copy selling, I find this totally right. So, if one is unable to pay, he simply won't contribute to development of the piece he wants and thats no less motivating to get on money (or contributing skills) than being unable to find money for copy purchase.
The problem I have with commercial closed source, is that - even if you pay for it, you expect: ability to run the program anywhere you want;
but what you receive instead is a limited right to use of closed source scrambled code only within specific time, on specific amount of machines, without ability to security of the code, without ability to modify it to your tastes, without ability for humanity to build upon your contribution further, and with them willing to anchor their protection algorithms down your throat by your own money, and with them using your money to ensure their advantage over other (perhaps better) solutions - thus you bind yourself to specific proprietary developer and his own choice of platforms, standards etc.
So you essentially buy a one-way plum, instead of contributing to development process. Software is not "plums", but process, IMHO. So why not use network to directly hook into communication with developer and money into development process, and not copyselling self-humiliating wars?..
a) spread its usage (marketshare), even if they don't pay
b) do not modify their own habits (think of a "start button" syndrome)
c) form good base for "anti-piracy" attack
d) are always vulnerable to this attack, because the license of the pieces they distribute prohibits what they do, so they are walking time-bombs
My viewpoint is that the efficient method is not to pirate DRMed content, but to quit this and start supporting those who develops in different way or at least is not this aggressive/pervasive.
Last edited by brosis; 05-12-2013 at 09:10 AM.
2. already done.
3. already here, hence I ignore them. But there are two interesting exceptions: spotify - where for a fair price one can listen and save music for personal usage without any limit; and steam - where one can pay and be assured his purchases are supported in long term. Those two are alternatives and in way considered "better" than open solutions.
4. nearly here. They also push DRM into internet. So pieces connect.
5. they are not, get on IRC and spawn some nice projects with different development scheme, good enough for people to be considered usable. Proprietary can attack torrents, but they can't do anything if people just switch to different provider, except crippling interchange standards (gates) - which they actively try and fail.
Last edited by brosis; 05-12-2013 at 09:22 AM.
Seriously though, you can't pin the blame on DRM to those who pirate DRM'd content. That's shifting the blame away from the perpetrator and on to the people who are merely interested in free sharing of content. And sharing is inevitable, because you can't just go and tell everyone who shares content to "stop doing that". Sharing, or "piracy" as you like to call it, will always exist and has always existed, DRM or not.
Your stance only serves to legitimize DRM, by basically saying "oh, it's understandable that they use DRM because people pirate their content otherwise". Sharing should not be a problem to be prevented, it should be seen as an ASSET. Why fight torrents? There you already have a distribution network, free of cost, why not take advantage of it? Design your business model around sharing instead of trying to fight the windmills!
So basically, you shouldn't be saying "stop pirating DRM content, people" because that's pointless. You should rather be saying "stop using DRM" because we CAN have business models that allow sharing. Examples are many... release your content for free, then monetize later on your fanbase by merchandise or whatever. Crowdsourcing/crowdfunding, get your money in advance and then let your content be shared every which way, building up reputation and hype for your next project. The possibilities are endless, all the content producers need to do is tell the copyright enforcers to shove it, forget DRM and embrace the future.
Good reading http://falkvinge.net/2013/04/22/corr...ness-problems/
When it comes to smartphones, the situation is way more interesting, because it's still a growing market with plenty of room for new OS's to grab market share. Why? Because only about half of the world's phones are smartphones as of now, so even if Android dominates now, there's plenty of room for Sailfish, Tizen or Firefox to grab a sizable chunk of the market. The smartphone-to-dumbphone ratio is only going to grow, probably eventually to 100%, which means the smartphone market is going to grow about 100% from what it is now, giving room for new competitors.
2. Not to the extent to which they are planning to. Read this from the FSF: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html
Basically, a true TC scheme, as envisioned by Microsoft, would mean that you would be totally out of control of your own hardware. The OS could flag some files "protected content", and if you try to copy them to some other media, the computer would just say "I can't let you do that, Dave". Streaming video would be protected from screen recorders on the OS level. Trying to rip DVD's or BD's would be impossible. Even text could be protected, for example, your email client wouldn't allow you to copy-paste text from emails, and the email sender could remotely erase emails they'd already sent you.
As egregious as the DRM in windows is, it's not quite there yet, but that is the direction Microsoft is heading to: they've published those plans clearly, and even if they're dormant for now, you can bet your ass they haven't been forgotten. They're simply using the step-by-step tactic: if you try to take away people's freedoms all at once, you'll run in considerable resistance. But if you can do it sneakily, one small step at a time, and make every step seem a "necessary evil" for people's convenience/safety/whatever, you'll get to the result smoothly, until one day we awake and wonder where did all our freedoms go.
3. Like said, we're not quite there yet - we have services with really bad DRM, but even netflix can be ripped by screen capture/recording. In a true TC scheme, you couldn't even do that.
4. Nearly there, but it's not a foregone conclusion - we have lots of people pushing back, and it's only inevitable if we allow it to be. People have power, join the resistance before it's too late. Donate some funds to EFF today, or heck, join as a member to EFF, EDRi or your local equivalent, do what you can to push back against corporate interest and the copyright mafia. Support your local Pirate Party, vote for them, ask if they need help with anything. Take part in campaigns, go to protest rallies, sign petitions. There's plenty of stuff that you or anyone can do to help!
5. Yes, you're right, there's always resistance and ways for people to fight back. But the thing is, we shouldn't let things go that far in the first place, we shouldn't give up our freedoms to the point that they can control what goes on on our computers.
Piracy in and of itself is a concern. It's not that big of a concern that companies make it out to be (most pirates wouldn't buy the things they pirate, anyway), but the whole attitude of pirates is wrong. You are not supposed to just take content and do whatever. You're supposed to either buy the content or not use it in the first place. The money does go to the authors, even if indirectly. Sure, a lot of it is distribution and publishing fees, but distributors and publishers can still be useful. Distributors provide central hosting space and easy access. Publishers negotiate with distributors, do QA and other auxiliary tasks (like translation). Those all are services, and people deserve to get paid for them. Now, they don't deserve to get paid more than the authors do; it should be proportional to the actual work put in. But they deserve to get paid regardless.
Now you're right about the fact that most publishers are being stupid and not making use of the situation. For one, DRM is antithetical to what they want to achieve in the first place. And they could use the torrent system for distributing legal content - game demo versions, Fair Use size clips of music, books, movies etc. That would raise interest, and would still be perfectly fine with the law.
prisoner's dilemma. If one crowdfunds, and the other crowdfunds, you both lose money and receive a product. If one crowdfunds, and the other doesn't, they receive the product free of charge and you lose money. If you don't crowdfund and they crowdfund, you receive the product free of charge and they lose money. If you both don't crowdfund, nobody gets the product and nobody loses money. So you will choose not to crowdfund every time, because there is a chance that you will get the content for free anyway, and you won't lose anything, while if you do crowdfund, you will surely lose money.
Last edited by GreatEmerald; 05-12-2013 at 02:20 PM.
What DRM stops: sharing content with family, lending a book or a movie to a friend (while that same behavior is completely acceptable for non digital versions)
What DRM doesn't stop: internet piracy.
It works: itunes and Amazon audio files, Tor and Baen books, Humble bundle games, Wakanim videos are all DRM free, and all of them are profitable..