Hacker News Reader

Comment by strictnein | Hacker News Reader

Steam, Netflix, Spotify, etc show that DRM can work properly when users are given the easy access to the media/content, and they've been a boon to content creators as well.

And, no, none of those sites using DRM are "a danger to our rights and our security" as the article breathlessly claims.

I'm sure it's not a popular opinion around here, but I used to be a donor to the EFF and no longer am. I feel they've gone off the deep end on too many issues and they're increasingly using hyperbole and hysteria to make arguments against relatively small issues. I mean, come on:

> "That proposition ranges from unpalatable on a gaming console, to repulsive on laptops and phones loaded with sensors and personal info"

Repulsive? With those scary "sensors" sensing things and you know what happens when DRM and sensors get together!?! Oh, that's right, nothing.

View on HN

> Steam, Netflix, Spotify

I use and enjoy all of these things but the DRM they include isn't why they are successful - it's the fact that they make it so much easier to deliver content to anyone, immediately, bypassing the normal 'store shelves' systems of distribution. (well, as long as you're in North America or some parts of Europe.)

While I agree that the EFF's message is often more reactionary than necessary, the DRM in these services serves no purpose except to make to provide a placebo to traditional commercial content owners, to get the content on those services. Ultimately, this is only a placebo. Netflix exclusives appear on the Pirate Bay minutes or hours after they go up on the service. Yet Netflix not only survives, but thrives - to such a degree that people use VPNs to circumvent the region locks, not the payment system.

How many years has it been since iTunes music went DRM-free? Yet it's the most popular means of acquiring paid-for music. Build a successful distribution system, make it available to everyone, and people will pay for content.

There are two types of piracy--there's torrenting (or similar), and then there's black market illicit resale. Torrenting is dominated by people who aren't going to pay for the content anyways--at this stage, the largest barrier that might induce people to torrent is probably geoblocking, and it's not clear if ending that would be more profitable for the content producers.

The sort of DRM that Steam employs is however somewhat useful for targeting people selling effectively stolen keys, as it allows for key revocation. It's this kind of piracy that I (and many content producers) find much more odious, since people think they're buying things legitimately but the producers aren't seeing a dime.

There's a third, which is what was often mentioned by Netflix and others during discussions about EME on W3C lists: casual piracy, where people just download a file and send it to a friend. It sounded like that was the sort of piracy that the studios were predominantly wanting to block (because they fundamentally don't think they can affect torrents, because they know that things will likely get broken)—the goal is to make it sufficiently hard that people won't do it trivially). Targeting stolen keys is, as far as I'm aware, mostly dealt with through key revocation and the law: I don't think anyone's ever really proposed a particularly technical solution to it.

> There's a third, which is what was often mentioned by Netflix and others during discussions about EME on W3C lists: casual piracy, where people just download a file and send it to a friend.

This is irrelevant in comparison with torrenting. If someone is willing to pirate it, sending to a friend won't be the option they'll go with. So justifying usage of DRM with that is simply false.

they wouldnt be successful without DRM because content providers wouldnt agree for their work to appear on the services. Unobtrusive DRM is why they are successful.

False excuse. Where is their own content DRM-free?

They should setup a different streaming system to stream their own content just to placate the 0.001% (probably too high) of people out there who pay for media and also care about the very existence of DRM?

If they claim that DRM isn't caused by them, they should apply it only to those who demand it. But I don't buy their excuse anyway. They are a willing participant of this corrupted DRM infested system, and they can't pretend they don't bear part of the blame.

> 0.001% (probably too high)

Studies show otherwise.

Can you use Spotify with you iPod classic? Can you iTunes movie work on your Android phone?

At some point, corporations convinced consumers that buying a whole service contract everytime you play a song is more convenient than just playing a song.

Also, phone sensors contain vital biometric data that the user has no access to.The repulsive thing that happens is that the device is locking your information from you. This is spreading out in other industries like autombiles and medical devices. Now you will have to buy a whole new service contract everytime you drive a car or check your blood pressure. So convenient.

> "Can you use Spotify with you iPod classic?"

The original iPod had no wifi so that would be tough. And iTunes is more locked in than I like, so I use Amazon for my media purchases.

> "At some point, corporations convinced consumers that buying a whole service contract everytime you play a song."

Well, no one is a buying a new contract every time, but I assume you mean that I'm agreeing to a contract when I listen to a song. If that's the case, yes, it's better than it used to be. I have access to millions of songs. We have on demand radio where I can pick every single song I listen to and I pay next to nothing for it. It's something we've dreamed of for decades.

> " is more convenient than just playing a song"

And are these companies supposed to just provide these songs for me for free to listen to? How would that work? And I can still buy music if I want, which I do for the artists I enjoy.

> "Now you will have to buy a whole new service contract everytime you drive a car"

I will?

> At some point, corporations convinced consumers that buying a whole service contract everytime you play a song is more convenient than just playing a song.

It's more about not needing to buy a piece of music to build a library. And it is more convenient to pay <$20/month to avoid piracy. Having a diverse music taste is incredibly expensive to satisfy legally.

> Steam, Netflix, Spotify, etc show that DRM can work properly when users are given the easy access to the media/content

How does it "work properly"? All it does is hindering those who pay for such services, since pirates aren't affected by it in any way and get the same content DRM-free.

> And, no, none of those sites using DRM are "a danger to our rights and our security" as the article breathlessly claims.

DRM is always a threat to privacy and security, when it runs some blob code on your machine with intention to police you assuming you are a criminal by default.

I think EFF really understands our ethos [i.e. the prevailing attitude on HN] (I'm not sure there's a name for it, perhaps Pirate Party?).

DRM is a farce, nobody who uses those services you mentioned does so because DRM. All DRM does it make it a pain in the ass when I can't pre-download netlix movies to my mac.

The idea of being used to gather data that I cannot access is repulsive.

Dismount your high horse.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com