[debate] Let's discuss DRM

[Imri Goldberg]

On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 3:48 AM, Alan Light <alanlight at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Note that Apple - for all its faults, mostly linked to trying to keep
> everything proprietary - does actually make good products, especially as
> regards the user interface.
>

One thing apple does is try to change programmable devices to "black box
appliances" - ones you don't need to look inside. DRM agrees with this
trend.


> Previous upgrades they understand, as they got more value each time - but
> now they have reached the end of that, and while they might not have
> understood at first exactly what DRM meant, once they understand they are
> not going to put up with it.
>

I'm not sure. If people get used to not being able to copy their music
around - well, they'll be used to it.


>
> That said, it is certainly the right of vendors to use Digital Rights
> Management - but I fail to see why society as a whole should be required to
> enforce the provisions of such contracts.  Perhaps those who enter into such
> agreements freely should be required to fulfill their contracts, but those
> who come across the material by other means should not be so restricted -
> and whereas DRM attempts to bypass copyright law, I am not sure that we
> should allow DRM-protected material to be copyrighted at all.  After all,
> copyright law is based on a compromise by which the material eventually
> enters the public domain - but if a company is doing their best to make sure
> that cannot happen, why should the public be required to keep their side of
> the bargain?
>

So, conversely, if copyright laws are altered to be less restricting, DRM
use will increase?

  Short Term versus Long Term thinking - well, that's OK, just don't expect
> the public to enthusiastically embrace any model which requires them to get
> screwed for the benefit of business.
>
>

I don't (and as I said, I dislike DRM). However, If people genuinely want to
listen to/read/watch something, and are used to the concepts enforced by
DRM, they might not even consider themselves getting screwed. Even if they
do, they might and might not choose to actually buy the content - it might
just be less of a hastle (back to the "DRM works" argument).


>   Not all of my computers and computerized devices are connected to the
> net.  I dislike this trend and find it insulting.
>

I believe you are referring to the trend and not to my words. On the
off-chance I might be misreading, I apologize - I didn't mean to insult you.



To sum up the debate so far, I think there are two main issues:
1. Does DRM work?
2. Given that it does, should DRM be used?

I think 1 is so far undecided, though I'm leaning towards that it works in
the common case - which is probably good enough.
Regarding 2, I think it is so far agreed that DRM could be used if one
wanted to use it (as it is one's choice), but it is undecided whether or not
it will have desireable results.

So I'll rephrase:
1. Does DRM technically work? (i.e., does it prevent most people from doing
the things the publisher didn't intend to be done with the DRM-ed content?)
2. Does using DRM achieve the desired results? (i.e. probably more sales...)

(It's also important to note that some DRM used is forced. For instance,
without DRM, Apple wouldn't be allowed to publish some content. The same
applies to Pandora, Last.fm, etc..)

Do you agree with my summation?

Cheers,
Imri



-- 
Imri Goldberg
--------------------------------------
www.algorithm.co.il/blogs/
--------------------------------------
-- insert signature here ----
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/pipermail/debate/attachments/20090523/c46b9448/attachment.htm>