Hacker News Reader

Comment by syshum | Hacker News Reader

While I too oppose DRM, I find it less objectionable on a Subscription service like Netflix because there no assumption of ownership. I do not own the content on Netflix I did not buy it, I am renting a access licenses to a library of content for a monthly fee.

Now DRM on BluRay, DVD, Digital Downloads, Games, etc that do have an assumption of ownership because I pay a onetime fee with the expectation of accessing that content in a non-time limited way. Those types of things should never have DRM

View on HN

DRM is kind of a blunt tool though. When you rent content, you are still allowed to reproduce parts of it for academic work, for reviews and commentary, and for other derivative works. Current DRM schemes try to block all of that.

For me, DRM seems pointless because I have very little motive these days to actually copy the streams. When I was a kid, I used to tape songs off the radio. My kids have access to things like Pandora and Spotify and they have absolutely no desire to do something like that. Make everything reasonably available and the desire to pirate is diminished.

Bingo. The real reason for DRM to exist is to maintain the old systems of distribution zones and price differentiation.

A system that came into place in the analog era, thanks to differences in broadcast signals. Something that VHS recreated verbatim, and thus a NTFC movie had to be converted to a PAL movie etc.

You are renting it, but you, the consumer is paying the price (inconvenience of not watching it on any device). That's madness. It's not like the pirates will be unable to find a downloadable version. This anti-consumer mentality is madness: all it does is alienate your customer.

>Now DRM on BluRay, DVD, Digital Downloads, Games, etc that do have an assumption of ownership because I pay a onetime fee with the expectation of accessing that content in a non-time limited way. Those types of things should never have DRM

Oh man, I still remember when Microsoft tried to pull "steam" on their xOne - backlash was insane and they backed out. I wonder why do PC gamers let Steam, Origin, Battle.net, other crapware apps walk all over them with DRM. Buy a console, buy a game - you do not like it - sell the disk on ebay.

I was an avid Steam hater (hey, and Microsoft hater before that. It seems I disliked quite a lot when I was younger).

But Steam seems decent enough today. For me it's a content delivery service. The benefits are

- A single store for your games (what Amazon tries to be for the ~rest~?)

- Automatic, mostly seamless updates in the background¹

- A community. You cannot reach me on Facebook. I don't have SnapChat, Instagram, WhatsApp, Signal, whatever. You can reach me on Steam though²..

- Discover new stuff (recommendations)

DRM is something that Steam offers, but it doesn't require it for all I know. You can get DRM free games and download/manage those via Steam.

I have no use for these plastic discs (I .. don't have a drive for those) and they do not solve the 'The first thing post-launch is a big update to fix core game issues' tendency in the gaming industry.

1: Steam Games that just .. start a Launcher that then proceeds to update the game are highly annoying, because waiting for said update is usually a non-issue today

2: I prefer Mail and experiment with Telegram (nice, obvious issues) and Matrix/Riot (probably what I'll push on my friends and family a couple UX iterations down the road). But this statement is true/no hyperbole: My friends do contact me via Steam for quick IM sessions.

- A single store for your games (what Amazon tries to be for the ~rest~?)

No, that's xBox/PS store. On my PC I have: Steam, Battle.net, Origin, Epic Games Launcher, Glyph aaaand Windows Store for Gears of War 4/Forza Horizon 3. Achievements and friends are scattered through all these crapware programs.

PC gaming is a mess.

> I do not own the content on Netflix I did not buy it, I am renting a access licenses to a library of content for a monthly fee.

You don't own the content when you buy a disc either. You own a copy.

Suppose you go out and buy a CD or DVD, make some fair use copies for whatever legitimate purposes you imagine, then when you're done you destroy the copies and sell the original disc on eBay.

Please explain why this is morally different than subscribing to Netflix and making fair use copies of the stream under the same circumstances.

Does U.S. fair use require you to destroy the fair use copies when you're no longer in posession of the original? I don't think so, I think you could even return it to the store, keep the backups and be perfectly legal. Perhaps intent matters?

> Does U.S. fair use require you to destroy the fair use copies when you're no longer in posession of the original? I don't think so, I think you could even return it to the store, keep the backups and be perfectly legal.

The point is to not argue about such things. Never mind what is and isn't fair use, imagine the strongest possible case for fair use that you can. Something that definitely is. Now in that case suppose the source is a Netflix stream rather than some physical medium.

Why is that supposed to change anything? How is DRM OK in one case and not the other? There is no case where it doesn't prohibit you from doing something you have a right to do.

I don't support DRM, I'm just wondering if I can buy music I like, rip them, and donate the CD's to my sorority. They need to keep copies of all CD's they play in the building as a protection against our local copyright groups BREIN and BUMA/STEMRA, otherwise they'd have to pay a monthly fee based on the total area music is played in.

I think any restriction placed on general purpose computers ends up an assault on the whole thing. I agree with Cory Doctorow's thoughts [0] on this and it being an issue of human v. property rights.

[0] https://boingboing.net/2012/01/10/lockdown.html

Technically, it's like getting a DVD from a library for a day — you can still make a private copy (Privatkopie) under copyright law.

Whose copyright law? Certainly not in the US.

I guess you are referring to German copyright law. But I don't think even there it's legal to make a copy of you are just renting the movie.

It is, as long as it’s for personal use, and you don’t have to break DRM on movies or music (this last part was added due to the WIPO treaties requiring that).

Only as long as you don't circumvent DRM, which in practice voids the whole Privatkopie thing because even CSS is counted as "wirksamer Kopierschutz" (effective copy protection), which is kind of a joke.

That’s not completely correct. "As long as you don’t circumvent DRM on movies or music".

DRM on games, software, books, etc is legally not protected, at all.

And the DRM clause for movies wasn’t in German law originally either, but it was forced into it via an international treaty, and the US demanded this, and threatened with embargoes otherwise. Even North Korea signed this treaty. (The WIPO treaties).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com