How is it not in their interests?
Their interest is in letting people use their browsers to view content. The media companies have made it clear that’s not happening without DRM.
So the browser companies support it.
It’s not manditory, you can ship content without it. But if Chrome said ‘DRM free only’ all that would happen is people would abandon it to be able to watch video online.
If you don’t like DRM then get legislation made. But you’ll never do that because even without the giant lobbying budgets I don’t see why lawmakers would make it illegal.
If people were actively boycotting anything that uses DRM and were bawling out media companies that use DRM, there would soon appear media companies that provide a "no-DRM media package". As soon as these companies were making big money with DRM-free content, I am pretty sure the large media companies would in the long run give up their stupid idea that DRM is necessary.
DRM is only necessary because there exist (too many) people who don't have a zero-tolerance policy against DRM.
Really? I can see a pretty good argument for why it SHOULD be legal. If I want to post some content I make online why shouldn’t I be able to try to protect it?
And let’s not go through the ‘But Sony rootkit!’ stuff. You can make safe DRM. Rooting someone’s computer is already a crime, that’s why Sony in trouble.
> As soon as these companies were making big money with DRM-free content...
Far too many people see nothing wrong with piracy. It works on music because it’s so cheap. I don’t think you’ll get 99c TV shows or especially movies any time soon. It probably isn’t sustainable, especially for movies.
So people will pirate, out of cheapness or inability to pay or ‘righteousness’ or whatever.
It’s not going to happen.
> ... I am pretty sure the large media companies would in the long run give up their stupid idea that DRM is necessary.
Why should they, from a business perspective, give up control they have now with basically no downside? I don’t even see a moral argument they should give it up.
Now I agree we need better fair use laws, and security people should be able to poke at DRM to make sure it’s not doing evil things. But I don’t see why society, under moral or business obligations, could support outlawing DRM.
The current state of affairs is that it's not just legal to use DRM, it's illegal (DMCA) to try and break a DRM scheme, _even if you do so in order to exercise your legally guaranteed fair use rights_.
It seems to me that there should be some sort of sort of moral right to self-defense that applies here: just like society/the law recognises that it is morally acceptable to use deadly force to defend yourself from someone who is trying to murder you (even if it wouldn't be otherwise), we can recognise that it is morally acceptable to use the legal equivalent of deadly force (ban DRM, make it illegal for them to enforce their right to protect their content) in self-defense (against them using DRM to make it illegal for you to enforce your right to fair use).
More bluntly: Content creators, with their support of the DMCA, have proven that they have no concern for my rights or freedoms. What standing do they have to expect me to have any for theirs?
The comparison to deadly force.... seems hyperbolic. No one is in mortal peril. I would have voted you up without that. Those kind of statements make it impossible to have/take discussions like this seriously.
On the other point, I'm not convinced that supporting better fair use laws is enough on its own. An equitable compromise between two parties with fundamentally opposing interests can rarely be reached if there is a deep asymmetry in terms of their ability to just take what they want and run. Maybe, if comparison to anything involving murder is going too far for you, we can instead make one to (ironically enough) stealing: if the local group of school bullies keeps dragging you into dark alleyways and taking your lunch money, will you also support better rights to keep your lunch money but think it is going too far to demand that they be put in detention, because you see a pretty good argument why they should have a right to free movement?
The MPAA is not actively attacking you. They’re putting conditions on how you can view their content.
Letting the police do the attacking stuff is just a formality.
The only difference is that the videotapes can now try and enforce it themselves.
Their content will still be distributed without their consent, because DRM is broken as quickly as it is implemented.
And they will not be the one using DRM to control distribution of their content, the DRM vendor will be.
Next: why shouldn't I use the magic beans the mafia are offering me to protect my content?
You don’t seriously expect people to engage in a discussion like this do you?
As emodendroket pointed out the rest of your comment is the argument against any kind of lock ever. It’s a false dichotomy.
Why computer should not serve its owner best interest and instead serve interests of media companies?
Well, a broad-based pressure group making them think they'd lose office if they didn't support such a thing is the only way anything like that ever gets passed. A lot of folks in Congress didn't want to see JASTA passed but felt they had no choice but to vote for it, so there's a model.
But yeah, this conversation, talking about how maybe if we ask Google nicely they'll act against their financial interests, strikes me as pretty naive.
I mean legally I don’t know if this counts as a free speech argument or not I just don’t see how such a long would end up passing muster.