Sir Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the world wide web, director of the web standards trendsetter W3C, and Knight Commander, Order of the British Empire, has given his blessing to anti-piracy locks on web content. Traditionally, web technology has been open. HTML markup, CSS, and JavaScript code can be viewed (though not …

COMMENTS

Post your comment

House rules Send corrections

Add to 'My topics'

Page:

Friday 7th July 2017 21:08 GMT Doctor Syntax

"The W3C, unable to reach agreement on how vulnerability disclosure should be handled, responded with something less than that, offering only voluntary guidelines instead a requirement."

Presumably this means that some DRM vendors will be sensible and some will make life difficult. In due course the latter will get their reward - a reputation for being a cess-pit of malware. Sadly, past experience shows that that won't do them as much harm as one might hope.

34 1 Reply
1. Saturday 8th July 2017 09:50 GMT Anonymous Coward
  
  Presumably this means that some DRM vendors will be sensible and some will make life difficult. In due course the latter will get their reward - a reputation for being a cess-pit of malware. Sadly, past experience shows that that won't do them as much harm as one might hope.
  
  Exactly.
  
  Who knows. One can foresee the consequences of a borked DRM implementation being exploited somehow by a mass Ransomware outbreak. Those consequences would be very public, and very humiliating, and (if customers sue) possibly quite expensive.
  
  Exploit hunting is kind of like a race. In a sense the blackhats compete against the whitehats, and they who find an exploit first "wins". The blackhats make off with the loot / drop down some malware, etc. The whitehats get public thanks, possibly a bounty, and the grateful thanks of us all.
  
  If, say, a film studio, were openly engaged with the research community, what that tells the blackhats is that they really do have competition. If the studio was obstructive of the researh community, the blackhats know there's less competition, and the exploit pickings might be richer as a result. It might also take a lot longer for the exploits to be plugged; I can't see film studios keeping on an entire dev team trawling over code just in case, they're going to fire the guys and girls just as soon as it looks "finished".
  
  14 0 Reply
Friday 7th July 2017 21:10 GMT Anonymous Coward

What could possibly go wrong?

Lots of content providers using a DRM together meaning they have the same keys to allow them to publish DRM material to browsers.

Wasn't DVD and Blu-ray a form of DRM?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLUodac2BRU

8 2 Reply
1. Monday 10th July 2017 08:29 GMT big_D
  
  Each would have their own keys - we are talking internet connected devices here, not offline DVD players.
  
  5 0 Reply
Friday 7th July 2017 21:28 GMT Your alien overlord - fear me

Can't the foes of copyright just write their own stuff so when (say) a streamed movie is shown, the module that shows the actual movie gets intercepted and the data stream gets saved somewhere to be torrented for everyone else's benefit?

21 2 Reply
1. Friday 7th July 2017 22:15 GMT Anonymous Coward
  
  Yep, been there, done that many, many times. I've a DVD copier that's grandfathered under a previous court decision. DVD's CSS (Content Scrambling System) encryption got "cracked." Same has happened to Blu-Ray. Hardly a speed bump to the technically literate which, as the content owners well know, is the point. Most people are that technically literate. On yon other hand, it only takes one expert who posts the resulting unencrypted work on the Internet. Game over.
  
  The hilarious thing here is that this entire methodology, warts and all, is what's going to happen with legally mandated back-doors. What one can invent, someone can hack the crap out of. Just watch.
  
  39 0 Reply
Friday 7th July 2017 22:04 GMT chris121254

We have two weeks to stop this and hopefully we will.

7 2 Reply
1. Monday 10th July 2017 08:25 GMT Anonymous Coward
  
  "We have two weeks to stop this and hopefully we will."
  
  I love you adobe Flash, but we only have 14 days to save the earth!
  
  Sorry, hang on a minute, it sounded so much better in my head....
  
  10 0 Reply
  1. Monday 10th July 2017 16:18 GMT Anonymous Coward
    
    This is the multi-build multi-exploit that Flash dreams to be, that's saying something. Tim needs to step away. He's either rhetorical only or playing politics, he's clearly not hands on any more.
    
    This so called DRM isn't needed as their is alreafy encryption for this, so what is the real reason for this? Possibly to bypass user encryption with sandbox data collection... no, that wouldn't be ethical.
    
    1 0 Reply
Friday 7th July 2017 22:06 GMT h4rm0ny

I don't see a problem.

Those people who want to secure their content with DRM can use it. Those who don't aren't compelled to. The only negative consequence of this technology is the scenario of someone wanting access to content without, you know, paying for it. And that's just hypothetical so I'm sure has nothing to do with it.

19 27 Reply
1. Friday 7th July 2017 23:21 GMT Yes Me
  
  Re: I don't see a problem.
  
  Being a published author whose book has been pirated (somewhere in .ru, I believe) and also being a believer in open source software and open standards, my conclusion is that TimBL is correct. As long as there's copyright law in the real world, there's going to be DRM on-line, so it's better for it to be based on an open standard (and on open source implementations). I think the EFF position is unreasonable. To get rid of DRM, first get rid of copyright law (and good luck with that).
  
  30 16 Reply
  1. Saturday 8th July 2017 02:51 GMT Yet Another Anonymous coward
    
    Re: I don't see a problem.
    
    You can't have an open source implementation of a DRM'ed browser without it leaking the content.
    
    So once all sites implement DRM for their content the only permitted browser will be IE, Safari and a new Google propriety chrome
    
    13 2 Reply
    1. Saturday 8th July 2017 10:29 GMT Steve Knox
      
      Re: I don't see a problem.
      
      You can't have an open source implementation of a DRM'ed browser without it leaking the content.
      
      Actually it is possible, just very difficult.
      
      Which is why the standard is recommending putting the DRM piece in the CDM, not the browser.
      
      The CDM is the Flash-equivalent binary, except way simpler. The idea is to reduce the scope of the proprietary bits to the minimum needed to support DRM. It's a compromise that is actually very open source friendly.
      
      And whether W3C approves it or not, it's already been here for years. Have you watched HTML5 video from Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, PornHub, et al. In any browser? Then you've been using a CDM.
      
      5 0 Reply
      1. Saturday 8th July 2017 19:09 GMT Yet Another Anonymous coward
        
        Re: I don't see a problem.
        
        But my open source browser renders the image to my open source graphics driver on my open source hardware - how does the DRM stop me saving a copy of all those bits ?
        
        The only way is for websites to only work with approved signed browsers on approved signed OSes with approved signed drivers
        
        10 0 Reply
  2. Saturday 8th July 2017 10:06 GMT Anonymous Coward
    
    Re: I don't see a problem.
    
    @Yes Me,
    
    As long as there's copyright law in the real world, there's going to be DRM on-line, so it's better for it to be based on an open standard (and on open source implementations). I think the EFF position is unreasonable. To get rid of DRM, first get rid of copyright law (and good luck with that).
    
    I quite agree.
    
    There's a massive contratiction in the argument put forward by the anti-DRM (and therefore anti-copyright) lobbyists. The GPL relies utterly on the enforeceability of copyright law. The EFF is a strong defender of copyright when it comes to that...
    
    Online distribution of paid, DRM protected media has thus far been fairly lame-brained. Fair Use is a really difficult technological problem to solve. I think that this new extension could (and I acknowledge that it relies utterly on film studios, etc. being actively minded to do this) be used to support a DRM system that enables fair use by educational institutes, etc. If that's what happened, the EFF really, really wouldn't have any leg to stand on at all.
    
    5 12 Reply
  3. Saturday 8th July 2017 19:15 GMT Mario Becroft
    
    Re: I don't see a problem.
    
    But if I understand correctly, it is not going to be based on open-source implementations.
    
    The proposed W3C standard provides a framework for audiovisual content providers to deploy their DRM binary blobs to the browser.
    
    There is no provision for code review, ensuring the binary blobs do not contain backdoors, vulnerabilities, performance problems etc., all of which have been demonstrated in abundance in prior DRM implementations.
    
    Since the audiovisual content eventually has to be emitted in unencrypted form so that my eyes and ears can perceive it, it will always be possible for motivated individuals to rip DRM-protected content anyway.
    
    Personally, it is not about the money; it is about ease of use, and my freedom to consume media in the format and on the device I prefer. Until content providers make it easier to buy their content than to pirate it, people will pirate it. The music industry realised this some time ago and now DRM is all but nonexistent. Meanwhile music artists' overall revenues from sales of music recordings has increased. My guess is the film industry is at least 5 years behind.
    
    21 0 Reply
    1. Saturday 8th July 2017 22:20 GMT Zakhar
      
      Re: I don't see a problem.
      
      I couldn't agree more!
      
      When I moved to HD Video, I switched from renting DVD to doing backups of HD movies from the internet ("to pirate" is inaccurate because when you digitally copy something, the original is not stolen, it is still there!.. that's why I use "to backup" instead).
      
      Indeed, it was impossible (or at least I didn't want to search for hours) to watch a rented BluRay on my chosen device which runs Linux, and I have absolutely no intention to change my O.S.
      
      I had no trouble renting a movie, but since they made more difficult than watching a backup, they got what they deserve.
      
      12 4 Reply
    2. Sunday 9th July 2017 09:19 GMT Kiwi
      
      Re: I don't see a problem.
      
      Since the audiovisual content eventually has to be emitted in unencrypted form so that my eyes and ears can perceive it, it will always be possible for motivated individuals to rip DRM-protected content anyway.
      
      Yup, a few seconds thought (combined with my (actually very limited) electronics, photography and AV knowledge, and I now have the expertise to defeat any DRM - effectively simply pointing a camera at the screen and using some well-placed microphones (actually I'd wire the output of one into the input of the other, maybe via a little bit of circuitry to keep things sounding good)
      
      Personally, it is not about the money; it is about ease of use, and my freedom to consume media in the format and on the device I prefer. Until content providers make it easier to buy their content than to pirate it, people will pirate it.
      
      When you brought a record, tape, CD or video, you could put it into any compatible player and play it perfectly OK (ie if you only had a reel-reel drive you couldn't do compact cassette, and a gramophone wouldn't play a 33rpm record so well (not if it was limited to 78rpm) in case I need to explain "compatible" to anyone!). When DVD came out it began, where you could only play the disc on a "appropriate region" device. Now with videos, it's just possible I could be out at a mates place, see a movie I want to watch at home, buy it using my phone and..Oh shit, can't put it on my TV¹ have to buy another copy for the TV. At which point I would pirate it² - I purchased a copy to watch on a decent screen, the device I watched it on should not matter. Or maybe I purchased it to preview myself to make sure it's ok for my kids, or appropriate to watch with a couple of Christian mates. But can only watch once before having to buy another copy, and cannot actually have mates around for a viewing anyway (what, you didn't realise you can interpret many (most?) of those copyright notices that way?)
      
      I'm not anti-copyright at all. I am very anti-DRM however, with the exception of encryption or other methods to protect private/sensitive data. Interesting that many of those who are of the "you should not freely see our material" camp also belong to the "we must be able to freely see all your private stuff, and have rights to it if and when we want" camps - eg Google, Apple, and a few others maybe named in the article...
      
      ¹ Yes yes I know chromecast etc may work, and maybe in future they will be stopped from working.
      
      ² Though you don't need to pirate with so many just-released-still-in-theatres movies on YouTube perfectly legally available, supplied by a big multi-national corporation)
      
      4 1 Reply
    3. Sunday 9th July 2017 22:42 GMT bep
      
      Re: I don't see a problem.
      
      "Personally, it is not about the money; it is about ease of use, and my freedom to consume media in the format and on the device I prefer. Until content providers make it easier to buy their content than to pirate it, people will pirate it. The music industry realised this some time ago and now DRM is all but nonexistent. Meanwhile music artists' overall revenues from sales of music recordings has increased. My guess is the film industry is at least 5 years behind."
      
      This is the crux of the problem, they need to repeat after me: "If I am the best source for my content, I own the content." Few people really wants to take the risk of exposing their computer to malware and phishing in order to torrent a TV show, but if the version available 'legally' is low-res crap, hard to access, makes you subscribe to a lot of crap you aren't interested in etc. then piracy will continue.
      
      4 0 Reply
2. This post has been deleted by its author
3. Friday 7th July 2017 23:31 GMT Carbbell
  
  Re: I don't see a problem.
  
  That is not impossible and everyone knows it: unbreakable DRM is impossible. The real problem here is that under USA laws circumventing DRM (under any circumstance) is illegal.
  
  Current law allows people to use copyrighted works for educational purposes, research, historical reasons, etc. But since it's illegal to circumvent DRM, you can get a lawsuit if you dare to use a clip of a Disney film in an animation class, if you use a clip of CNN news for whatever reason or if you decide to back up any media that you bought. (That is, if Disney, CNN and that media was released with DRM.)
  
  So yes, this is less about protecting copyright holders and more about abolishing Fair Use and people sharing quirky gifs of a movie in Tumblr.
  
  34 4 Reply
  1. Saturday 8th July 2017 00:38 GMT Anonymous Coward
    
    Re: I don't see a problem.
    
    They will never be able to abolish Fair Use and stop people sharing quirky gifs of a movie in Tumblr.
    
    2 2 Reply
    1. Saturday 8th July 2017 17:33 GMT LionelHutz
      
      Re: I don't see a problem.
      
      They will never stop trying either, and one day they may win, if we don't constantly fight it.
      
      3 0 Reply
  2. Saturday 8th July 2017 08:08 GMT bombastic bob
    
    Re: I don't see a problem.
    
    "under USA laws circumventing DRM (under any circumstance) is illegal."
    
    yeah, like THAT would stop it. every 'legal marijuana' law in various states is ALSO illegal, because at the federal level, marijuana is illegal (hence illegal nationwide). And yet, so many states have passed marijuana legalization, from medical only to recreational, that pot shops operate out in the open.
    
    Which basically says that a law can become UNENFORCEABLE once everyone IGNORES it.
    
    23 0 Reply
    1. Saturday 8th July 2017 17:34 GMT LionelHutz
      
      Re: I don't see a problem.
      
      Nope. Those shops still get federally raided all the time, and our wonderful new attorney general is trying to make it even worse, as predicted. They're just profitable enough to make it worth the risk.
      
      1 1 Reply
  3. Monday 10th July 2017 15:13 GMT Tom 7
    
    Re: I don't see a problem.
    
    Really - Run up a VM and watch something DRMed in there. You can record the screen and sound with ease and you have an un DRMed copy of whatever it was. The only way round that is to make VMs illegal. You have open source browsers all over the place and the code can be hacked to record video and sound.The only way round that is signed browsers from signed sources and here be dragons.
    
    1 0 Reply
    1. Monday 10th July 2017 18:15 GMT patrickstar
      
      Re: I don't see a problem.
      
      Those that do DRM and actually care about the results obviously do detect VMs and refuse to play in them or only play degraded quality.
      
      Same with open source video drivers etc. Won't play. DRM gizmo authenticates to the video driver which authenticates to the hardware. All data between them is then passed encrypted. This is already present in most PCs - see Protected Audio-Video Path.
      
      No compliant DRM gizmo / video driver / etc for your OS? You'll simply have to pirate the movie if you want to watch it.
      
      1 0 Reply
4. Sunday 9th July 2017 08:37 GMT Doctor Syntax
  
  Re: I don't see a problem.
  
  "The only negative consequence of this technology is the scenario of someone wanting access to content without, you know, paying for it."
  
  So none of the ensuing plugins will have security consequences?
  
  Ahem...Flash.
  
  8 0 Reply
Friday 7th July 2017 22:22 GMT Zimmer

A Plea ..

Can they DRM the advertising please, so I don't have to download and play it....

35 0 Reply
1. Friday 7th July 2017 22:43 GMT Snowy
  
  Re: A Plea ..
  
  But if they do that then they can make the content only be visible if the advertising is?
  
  1 3 Reply
Friday 7th July 2017 22:31 GMT Oh Homer

Mixed feelings

On the one hand I despise DRM and every other measure that treats consumers like criminals. I also believe that all standards must be open, and more importantly free (as in academic freedom), not something that perverts supposedly "sold" goods into an eternal rental scheme, where your supposedly "purchased" goods magically disappear at the whim of the vendor.

But on the other hand I reluctantly accept that this is the only model that intellectual monopolists will ever use to sell their wares, and if we actually want their "nice things" then we are forced to obtain them on their terms. This either means having a hundred competing and incompatible proprietary standards for DRM-protected content delivery, which only work on certain platforms, or having a single standard built right in to open source tools that can run on any platform.

In short, this is the lesser of two evils.

10 7 Reply
1. Friday 7th July 2017 23:31 GMT Anonymous Coward
  
  Re: Mixed feelings
  
  Nonsense. Books, radio, TV and CDs were easy to copy and didn't contain DRM, yet artists (and especially publishing companies) still made billions of dollars with them. "Piracy" is an overblown problem.
  
  Even the name is an exaggeration: what the h does copying something without permission have to do with kidnapping, stealing and murdering in a coastal area? "Illegal copying" or "Illegal sharing" is a much better name, but then again, it doesn't make the perpetrators look like horrible criminals, does it?
  
  32 10 Reply
  1. Saturday 8th July 2017 03:43 GMT Updraft102
    
    Re: Mixed feelings
    
    ""Illegal copying" or "Illegal sharing" is a much better name, but then again, it doesn't make the perpetrators look like horrible criminals, does it?"
    
    And add to that that in the US at least, violating a copyright isn't illegal, so it's not even really "illegal copying." It's a civil matter, not criminal, until the violator knowingly and intentionally tries to use the copied material "on a commercial scale."
    
    17 2 Reply
    1. Monday 10th July 2017 15:18 GMT Tom 7
      
      Re: Mixed feelings
      
      And talk like an ""Illegal copying" or "Illegal sharing" day is going to be a bit shit too!
      
      0 0 Reply
    2. Monday 10th July 2017 17:56 GMT Jamie Jones
      
      Re: Mixed feelings
      
      ""Illegal copying" or "Illegal sharing" is a much better name, but then again, it doesn't make the perpetrators look like horrible criminals, does it?"
      
      Indeed. And the US courts have confirmed that.
      
      From: https://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-banned-from-using-piracy-and-theft-terms-in-hotfile-trial-131129/:
      
      Leading up to the trial, Hotfile has scored several significant wins against the MPAA. The Florida federal court ruled on several motions this week, and many went in favor of the file-hosting service. Most prominently, Judge Kathleen Williams decided that the movie studios and its witnesses are not allowed to use “pejorative” terms including “piracy,” “theft” and “stealing” during the upcoming proceedings.
      
      And add to that that in the US at least, violating a copyright isn't illegal, so it's not even really "illegal copying." It's a civil matter, not criminal, until the violator knowingly and intentionally tries to use the copied material "on a commercial scale."
      
      Some may be surprised, but It's the same here in the UK:
      
      http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/intellectual_property_crime/
      
      http://www.inbrief.co.uk/intellectual-property/criminal-liability-copyright/
      
      3 0 Reply
  2. Saturday 8th July 2017 06:07 GMT Anonymous Coward
    
    @AC "easy to copy"
    
    Books are "easy" to copy in that you can spend a half hour with a copy machine and copy it. It requires an investment of time, and an investment of money (unless you use the copy machine at work or something) Maybe it would be worth it for a college student who doesn't want to pay $200 for a textbook, but for a $9.99 paperwork, no way.
    
    Copying unprotected digital data on the other hand requires no investment of time or money. Well, unless you want to KEEP copies of every book you read and every movie you see!
    
    There is a huge difference here, and it is silly to pretend that difference does not exist.
    
    22 4 Reply
    1. Sunday 9th July 2017 08:59 GMT Doctor Syntax
      
      Re: @AC "easy to copy"
      
      Maybe it would be worth it for a college student who doesn't want to pay $200 for a textbook, but for a $9.99 paperwork, no way.
      
      If the publisher were to sell their textbooks in paperback form they might sell more. Even without copying the $200 textbook is apt to be sold second-hand and third-hand if $200 is overpriced for its market.
      
      Copying unprotected digital data on the other hand requires no investment of time or money. Well, unless you want to KEEP copies of every book you read and every movie you see!
      
      Errm. What about people who simply want to keep copies of every book and movie they've PAID for?
      
      There is a huge difference here, and it is silly to pretend that difference does not exist.
      
      You've given examples of the supply side trying to manipulate the market. Don't be surprised if the demand side demands the right to respond in like manner. If vendors receive legal protection they should also be regulated to prevent them abusing that protection; at present this isn't the case.
      
      8 1 Reply
      1. Sunday 9th July 2017 19:20 GMT Anonymous Coward
        
        @Doctor Syntax - textbook sales
        
        I am guessing you aren't from the US, where textbooks are a racket to steal money from college students. Professors get kickbacks from book companies for using textbooks in their classes, and so sometimes require more than one. They cost a ridiculous amount, and there's a new edition every year (perhaps every semester now?) to prevent their resale and reuse - they have different homework problems in them so you can't get by with older editions!
        
        Even more money is made by the professors who write textbooks, so it is worth it for those who teach big lecture classes to write their own textbooks even if the only people who use them are their own students!
        
        Students in the US will often spend upwards of $1000 per semester on books, the resale value of which is nearly zero when they finish the class because new editions are forthcoming which obsolete the old ones.
        
        11 0 Reply
        
        Monday 10th July 2017 11:02 GMT Tom 38
        
        @DougS
        
        They are also usually hardback, because students looove that extra quality and durability you get by paying three times as much for a book...
        
        Of the 30 or so CompSci books on my bookshelf that I bought for uni (many) years ago, I think about 4 have ever been re-read after the course had finished - Design Patterns (by the GoF), Modern Operating Systems, Computer Networks (both by Tanenbaum) and Software Engineering (Sommerville)
        
        0 0 Reply
  3. Saturday 8th July 2017 19:29 GMT Mario Becroft
    
    Re: Mixed feelings
    
    Agreed. The supposed need for DRM is predicated on a default assumption of criminal intent of all content providers' clientelle, and that this has to be mitigated by technical means.
    
    What if we started from the assumption that most people just want an efficient and effective way to buy and watch movies.
    
    Nobody (in recent cultural memory) has sucessully argued that books must be chained to the shelves to prevent IP theft, for example.
    
    7 1 Reply
  4. Sunday 9th July 2017 08:00 GMT Anonymous Coward
    
    Re: Mixed feelings
    
    Nonsense. Books, radio, TV and CDs were easy to copy and didn't contain DRM, yet artists (and especially publishing companies) still made billions of dollars with them.
    
    Well, the publishers and other setups that explicitly rely on "accidental" copyright violations such as YouTube and Facebook (come on, be fair) made money with it. The artists and creators, not so much.
    
    I am honest enough to acknowledge the problem. That does, however, not mean I agree with the solution. DRM works where you have perfect control over the environment. Any 3D film you have seen in the cinema since Avatar was delivered electronically with DRM protection, and even in that fairly controlled environment key management was a bit of a problem (as I discovered over the years when first day showings were delayed or even cancelled when keys had not arrived in time or did not work).
    
    Now scale up this problem in the modern day era where there are gazillions of consumers and an absoluut boatload of people willing to sell just about anything for money and I foresee (a) usability issues galore and (b) a limited time before the keys leak or one bored teenager cracks the whole thing over a rainy weekend.
    
    "Piracy" is an overblown problem.
    
    No, the problem is real, but the crux of it is that it is not a TECHNICAL problem, and just piling tech on top of it won't solve it. It just shifts responsibility and accountability around. There are economic arguments where they've demonstrated that piracy would die out overnight if prices dropped. There are legal arguments that fair use matters, and thus should not be permitted to be pursued as piracy without substantial consequences and malpractice suits. There are proportionality issues where an out of work mother should not be prosecuted as if the 10 files she shared would somehow deprive a rights holder of more income than of the entire state she lives in - those are issues that must be addressed.
    
    In that picture, DRM doesn't even feature.
    
    9 0 Reply
  5. Sunday 9th July 2017 16:05 GMT Dr Stephen Jones
    
    Re: Mixed feelings
    
    "Nonsense. Books, radio, TV and CDs were easy to copy and didn't contain DRM, yet artists (and especially publishing companies) still made billions of dollars with them. "Piracy" is an overblown problem."
    
    Try talking to some people write books or make TV programmes. Even Graham Linehan went ballistic when his C4 show was Torrented before it had been broadcast.
    
    Some of us predicted what would happen to culture if you didn't fix piracy - welcome the world of Kardashians and clickbait.
    
    1 6 Reply
  6. Tuesday 11th July 2017 08:16 GMT Oh Homer
    
    Re: "Nonsense"
    
    I agree, but sadly the intellectual monopolists do not, and it's their opinion that determines how they choose to deliver their content, like it or not.
    
    0 0 Reply
2. Sunday 9th July 2017 08:49 GMT Doctor Syntax
  
  Re: Mixed feelings
  
  "But on the other hand I reluctantly accept that this is the only model that intellectual monopolists will ever use to sell their wares, and if we actually want their "nice things" then we are forced to obtain them on their terms."
  
  Trade is a matter of bargaining. If providers want to well to us then they have to deal with our terms. Success happens when a common set of terms can be agreed on by both sides.
  
  The ongoing problem that Big Content has experienced has come from their trying to manipulate markets - segmentation by country etc. They have been very slow to grasp the idea that that doesn't work in the modern world.
  
  4 1 Reply
  1. Sunday 9th July 2017 11:54 GMT h4rm0ny
    
    Re: Mixed feelings
    
    >>"Trade is a matter of bargaining. If providers want to well to us then they have to deal with our terms. Success happens when a common set of terms can be agreed on by both sides."
    
    But that's tangential to DRM. You are bothered by DRM because it allows wider range of terms to be negotiated over. Nobody has to buy DRM'd content and were the above truly what you believed then you would recognize that DRM doesn't impede the trading process. It logically enhances it because it opens up new options. For example, I rent movies on Amazon. That is a set of terms that would not be possible without DRM. I would be limited to posted discs or all-out purchase because there's no way a company can rely on an honour system for people to delete MP4 files after download. The DRM allows both sides to agree on a common set of terms that couldn't exist otherwise.
    
    Let's be brutally frank here - your worry is not that people will not be able to agree on common terms and negotiate. Your worry is that people will do so and they will agree on terms that you personally do not like.
    
    3 6 Reply
  2. Monday 10th July 2017 04:23 GMT DanceMan
    
    Re: Mixed feelings
    
    "The ongoing problem that Big Content has experienced has come from their trying to manipulate markets - segmentation by country etc. They have been very slow to grasp the idea that that doesn't work in the modern world."
    
    Corporations can shift your job overseas, but woe betide you if you want to view something from out of your area.
    
    4 0 Reply
Friday 7th July 2017 22:41 GMT Pascal Monett

Slowly and surely they drew their plans against us

This push to DRM is like Chinese Water Torture - but a drop at a time, but it still drives you crazy in the end.

Sir Tim - shame on you for accepting any sort of compromise on this front. Fracturing the ever-ineffectual efforts of DRM makers is the only thing that ensures that we can continue to benefit from our legally-acquired content without trouble.

Indeed, DVD's were made copiable because one of the many publishing companies included its key in an unencrypted manner, IIRC. The result ? Piracy for the MPAA, but for me it means that I have all my DVDs ripped to my NAS and backed up properly without those horrid effing ads or "previews" for films I never was interested in in the first place. When I want to watch a film, I watch the film, not an endless stream of drivel that was only relevant in the month or two when I bought the DVD.

By keeping this fracture, we ensure that DRM companies will only ever employ second-rate programmers whose code will inevitably kneel to the steely-eyed abilities of their betters who will mercilessly rip apart their stupid schemes and allow us to continue to master our content in the manner of our choosing.

Yes, piracy will be a continuous menace - but the response to piracy is not locking down the content, it is making content that people genuinely want to pay for. Minecraft can be easily pirated, yet it is making money hand over fist. Films can easily be pirated, the good ones still have many, many people who buy the DVD or BluRay because they want to have the box, the artwork, and the ability to watch it even if the Internet is down for whatever reason.

DRM is a relic of last millennium, like DVD regions and dinosaurs. Let them effing die already.

42 3 Reply
1. Saturday 8th July 2017 13:48 GMT Charles 9
  
  Re: Slowly and surely they drew their plans against us
  
  "By keeping this fracture, we ensure that DRM companies will only ever employ second-rate programmers whose code will inevitably kneel to the steely-eyed abilities of their betters who will mercilessly rip apart their stupid schemes and allow us to continue to master our content in the manner of our choosing."
  
  Or they'll just stick to what they know (namely closed systems like Windows) which leaves the non-Windows users SOL. Think of Unintended Consequences.
  
  2 0 Reply
2. Saturday 8th July 2017 14:19 GMT emullinsabq
  
  Re: Slowly and surely they drew their plans against us
  
  "but for me it means that I have all my DVDs ripped to my NAS and backed up properly without those horrid effing ads or "previews" for films I never was interested in in the first place."
  
  I agree and I rip my own for exactly the same reasons.
  
  However, those things are part of DVD budgets, and so one can make a reasonable argument that you shouldn't be able to skip them. [Since I rip my own legal content to avoid exactly this, I think you can see how absurd I think this is.]
  
  However, if you want to put an end to this garbage, the way is to hurt their wallets. Instead of ripping it yourself, you could take back the DVD and tell the store you didn't want that non-movie drivel. Then go d/l it or just watch it via stream.
  
  Until the industry gets that open content has value, it will not shed this notion that content must be protected. They just have to accept that in order to sell open content, someone might copy it and provide it gratis elsewhere. There are plenty of people willing to pay for unrestricted content-- books, movies, games, music, etc. It is true that some people will get the benefit without paying, but they were not going to buy it anyway.
  
  The industry thinks it makes more money with DRM than without. I am not convinced, and more to the point, there isn't any evidence that this is the case.
  
  11 0 Reply
3. Sunday 9th July 2017 11:53 GMT Anonymous Coward
  
  Re: Slowly and surely they drew their plans against us
  
  but for me it means that I have all my DVDs ripped to my NAS and backed up properly without those horrid effing ads or "previews" for films I never was interested in in the first place
  
  Ah, but you've just given me an idea. The fact that I have legally purchased media only means that I have purchased the content I actually want to see. If the distributor wants to force me to see other content, I have a very easy answer to that: he'll have to pay for my time, and as a consultant that can add up pretty nicely.
  
  I think I'm going to keep that option in mind when this evolves. I'm quite OK with running a test case on that basis. Just because I buy a car doesn't mean you should be able to force me to pass certain billboards before I can go where I want to go - f*ck that.
  
  I wish for all these execs to be forced to ensure the screaming of 4 year olds while they're waiting to get the "you won't steal a handbag" bit before the movie comes on. For at least two months.
  
  8 0 Reply