28 replies to this topic

[dega512]

So what's your oppinion on DRM?

[Reedbeta]

Why don't you start by giving us your opinion and maybe a little exposition on the topic, rather than just asking a vanilla question?

[dega512]

Alrighty then.

Well for music, I dislike DRM with a very strong passion. If an individual buys the music, they should get to do whatever they want with it. Once you purchase it, the creator's no longer get to tell you what to do with it.

As for DRM on things like email's I think it's a great idea, it can help keep secrets secret.

[Ooka]

Since it's impossible to protect a product completely without totally shutting off the media, it just creates a headache for legitimate consumers (a perfectly encrypted music CD, for example, wouldn't let you listen to the music.) If a product isn't perfectly protected, then it will be cracked, and quickly.

Legislation is the only answer.

If everyone was forced to bear the responsibility of ownership of any media, as well as enjoy the rights, piracy would become a nuisance, instead of a threat.

The extent of what the creator of any media should be able to tell you to do is simple... don't steal my product. Don't redistribute it, don't upload it and share it with the world. Just enjoy the fruits of my efforts in the way that I intended you to enjoy it. I put the time and effort into creating something you thought was worth your money.

If I want to remix a CD, play it to animated dancing fornicating pigs, and then use it in a bizarre private religious ritual involving Diet Coke and Mentos... that's my business.

If I upload the CD to kazaa, it becomes the creator's business, because I have violated the license under which I was allowed to access their media. My agreement to that license was implied by the purchase.

DRM on a software level, with various encryptions and protections, is stupid. It's so easy to reverse engineer even some of the most complicated algorithms that it's pointless. Liking throwing eggs at an oncoming tank. Doesn't work well.

DRM on the social level is necessary.

[Ed Mack]

DRM only helps bind us to platforms right now. ergo bad.

[Ed Mack]

Public private encryption is good for secrets.

[TheNut]

The only good thing about DRM is that it brings employment.

[moe]

Quote

it brings employment

Care to explain how?
All I see is that you might need less lawers in the end. So it's the opposite :)

Anyway, I have only read a little about it and there is one thing I didn't get entirely. I read if you want to access some media it will make a request on a DRM-server witch will return the licence and a key. Does that mean you need to be online, or does this happen in hardware on your system?

Because if it means you need to be online it would be a very bad thing! You could not buy a DVD and take it anywhere on vacation to watch it on your notebook. Hence, you would spend money on something witch you could not really use...

[geon]

moe said:

Anyway, I have only read a little about it and there is one thing I didn't get entirely. I read if you want to access some media it will make a request on a DRM-server witch will return the licence and a key. Does that mean you need to be online, or does this happen in hardware on your system?

One could make the system supply a timestamp with the key. Then, you can download the key at home, and it will be valid for some days/weeks. It would work on a "trusted computing" platform, where the system clock is updated online and guarded by the OS.

Or, the key could be bound to that particular device.

[dega512]

Quote

Does that mean you need to be online

Yes, this is what really sucks about DRM (but for a small portion of the media out there, it is possible aqquire a license for your computer/device that stays on your computer/device so that way you don't have to be online). But not only do you have to be online to get a license for it, the media is also encrypted; rendering your media usless for most portable devices :wacko: :sad: :wallbash: .

[baldurk]

The problem I see with DRM is that if I go out to the shops and buy a game, I'm not really buying a game anymore - I'm buying a license to play the game, and a copy of it. That license can be revoked, terms changed, etc. If I go out and buy a game I damn well want to own my copy of it, to do with what I will, within the normal copyright laws. I want to be able to sell it if it's a rubbish game (more and more often this is the case). I want to be able to play it without having to jump through 10 different copy protection hoops. I want to be able to play it in 20 years time when any protection support is gone and dead.

[moe]

Thx for the info. In this case however I must say DRM sucks big time. Basically it means not only do you have to pay the product but also you need to invest money for an online connection. If I buy a T-shirt I wear it wherever/whenever I want to. And if I decide to give it to someone else I have no problem whatsoever to do it. In the case of DRM it means even so I payed for it I might not be able to use it. How can you expect any customer to like that...

Also, it becomes discriminating. Since not everyone has a chance to get an online connection. E.g. When I was in Africa, there were very few places witch had internet connections. So, they restrict most of the africans from actually buying and useing a product. And that's just one sample.

Seriously, I hope that, if DRM get mainstream, noone will buy anything anymore until they remove it again from the market :) Ok, that's not realistic, but sill I hope so. :) Better yet it should never reach the market.

Oh, and I agree with baldurk. It's inaceptable that a licence might change after you payed for the game.

It's bad enough with the patches. Yes, it's good that a patch fixes a bug, but most of the time they go further than that. E.g. BFV they changed the gameplay several times. So, basically I payed for something and now I don't have it anymore... Would you like it if I sell you a Mercedes but after a year I come to you and exchange it for a Nissan Micra? I don't think so.

[TheNut]

Quote

it brings employment
Care to explain how?

Someone has to research it, then design it, then develop it, then test it, and then someone has to manage the whole process. Nothing but a cash cow for those smart enough to contract into this line of work.

DRM, like any other anti-preventive measures, is useless. All content must be decrypted in order to execute. Therefore, one need only copy the unencrypted buffer. Hence, the only good out of this is it brings employment. You can't lock the door and give someone the key and expect that to be safe.

[moe]

TheNut:
Ah, I see your point. It's so obvious now :) I agree this is the only good thing about it. Thx for the extra input.

[Ed Mack]

Murder creates jobs for police-people!

[Nils Pipenbrinck]

TheNut said:

DRM, like any other anti-preventive measures, is useless. All content must be decrypted in order to execute. Therefore, one need only copy the unencrypted buffer. Hence, the only good out of this is it brings employment. You can't lock the door and give someone the key and expect that to be safe.

That's not entirely true...

For audio DRM for example there is a plan (and a protocoll) to send encrypted audio streams to the DAC, which then decrypts the stream and converts it to analog. In the end the entire digital stream is encrypted. You can't simply hook up two wires onto the DAC serial interface and rip out the digital stream (something that at the moment works like a charm).

I see one good thing in DRM: Little companies can write programs for niche markets. If DRM works (e.g. the programs are not copyable) the company can survive. This helps employment. Competition will take care about the prices. We'll see a flood of good tools and programs.

If DRM really works one day the price for software will finally come to a point where you get something for your money (this is not true at the moment. There are so many tools that are great but just to expensive for a home user).

For example: Why is Adobe Photoshop that damn expensive? Sure, it's a pro-tool, but it's just that expensive because *everyone* has a illegal copy of it. If everyone would be forced to license it, the price could be as low as $50 or 100 or so.

[geon]

Nils Pipenbrinck said:

For example: Why is Adobe Photoshop that damn expensive? Sure, it's a pro-tool, but it's just that expensive because *everyone* has a illegal copy of it. If everyone would be forced to license it, the price could be as low as $50 or 100 or so.

The one who has much wants more. Adobe would not lower the price to less than what the proffessional users can afford. Proffessionals simply need the software. (Something hobbyists or home users rarely do.) and I doubt piracy is very common in companies.

Guess why Adobe released the low-end vesions of Photoshop for a much lower price? It certainly wasn't cheaper to develop. (They allready had the full-size photoshop...)

Also, how come they have almost 100% of the market? Because everyone can download the illegal copy and get comfortable with it. After that, noone will want to change to another product, even if it is virtually identical.

[moe]

Quote

Murder creates jobs for police-people!

Yes, but murder is illegal and DRM is not. So, you can't compare.

[Reedbeta]

moe said:

Yes, but murder is illegal and DRM is not. So, you can't compare.

Whether something's legal or illegal doesn't reflect whether it's good or bad. Murder's illegal, and it's a bad thing to do. DRM is legal, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing...

[Reedbeta]

Nils Pipenbrinck said:

For example: Why is Adobe Photoshop that damn expensive? Sure, it's a pro-tool, but it's just that expensive because *everyone* has a illegal copy of it. If everyone would be forced to license it, the price could be as low as $50 or 100 or so.

I was under the impression that everyone has a pirated copy of it because the price is so high, not the other way around. If the retail price was more reasonable, many more people would likely choose to buy it. :wallbash: