Comment by ajuc
7 years ago
This is why DRM isn't just anti-consumer, it's also morally evil using the same logic that says libraries are a good thing.
This is also why I buy games on gog.com instead of steam if they both have them.
7 years ago
This is why DRM isn't just anti-consumer, it's also morally evil using the same logic that says libraries are a good thing.
This is also why I buy games on gog.com instead of steam if they both have them.
> This is why DRM isn't just anti-consumer, it's also morally evil using the same logic that says libraries are a good thing.
It's also simply an inferior technical solution due to its unnecessary complexity and dependence on servers, corporate entities/departments/decisions.
We need legislation that only affords copyright protection to DRM-free works. Works protected by DRM should not be afforded any more protection than normal trade secrets.
We desperately need a way to pay most/all authors directly
Paying authors directly doesn't mean the book will not have DRM nor using an intermediate book selling service mean that they will have DRM.
The problem is having DRM, not how the book authors are paid.
Perhaps authors would be more inclined to distribute content DRM-free, and consumers to pay.
Some use this model already, for example Nine Inch Nails and Griz (may be wrong)
2 replies →
Have you found a solution to piracy that doesn't involve DRM? What was its success rate? I'm sure the publishers would love to switch to a better system if it exists.
Are you implying that DRM is a solution to piracy? If anything, DRM is a big driver for piracy, and its success rate is near zero. Virtually all major DRM-"protected" works are available on thepiratebay shortly after release. Sometimes before release.
The "better solution" is to treat your customers with respect and let them own their bought goods. Gog.com is a good example here, in my opinion.
What definitely doesn't work is to burden your paying customers with digital locks and hurdles to enjoyment, that the pirates will shortly find a way to remove for the non-paying audience.
Its fine to have an opinion on how things should be, but some of your assertions are not based on facts.
>Virtually all major DRM-"protected" works are available on thepiratebay shortly after release. Sometimes before release.
"Virtually all Server OSs get hacked/have had security bugs. Nobody should use them to host or store anything."
All you're saying is that DRM isn't perfect. Nothing is perfect, and it isn't exactly a revelation.
If it were impossible to pirate Windows, would all the pirates switch to Linux or another Free OS? If the answer is No, then a non-zero number of people will go out and purchase Windows. From a sales standpoint, preventing piracy is definitely going to drive sales. Also, if your answer is Yes to the question, then all the Free OS advocates should be making it impossible to pirate Windows. :)
>The "better solution" is to treat your customers with respect and let them own their bought goods. Gog.com is a good example here, in my opinion.
If we accept your premise that DRM == disrespecting customers, then you'll have to account for why people are still selling stuff with DRM, and continuing to make millions and millions of dollars. Do customers like being disrespected?
>What definitely doesn't work is to burden your paying customers with digital locks and hurdles to enjoyment, that the pirates will shortly find a way to remove for the non-paying audience.
The success of DRM'd products refutes your claim, entirely.
17 replies →
Apple, Inc. did - they sell all of their music without DRM for the last, like, 10 years. Meanwhile the music industry is alive and well.
The key is convenience. When it's convenient to buy, people buy.
Don’t forget IP laws. The threat of lawsuits is larger than the benefit of free music.
DRM is a means of protecting IP by technical means. When legal means are more effective then DRM isn’t necessary.
If you take the legal recourse off the table then I think free Napster like services proliferate.
Oh? I thought Apple Music was encumbered with DRM in their M4P format. I'm not super familiar with their service though. Maybe I'm wrong..
Edit: Looks like the M4P format was mainly on older songs pre2009. Though I see forum threads with people saying that they have to re-pay Apple w/ itunes match to get the drm-free version.
4 replies →
For movies? Netflix. For books? Piracy is irrelevant. (See far too many articles from Konrath, who at one point uploaded all his books on a torrent site AND advertised that on his blog... to no effect on his sales.)
I don't know if you know this, but DRM is a core part of Netflix. No studio would ever have signed up with them if they couldn't control distribution.
>See far too many articles from Konrath, who at one point uploaded all his books on a torrent site AND advertised that on his blog... to no effect on his sales
I am not familiar with that example. Any link to the data?
3 replies →
No company has ever gone out of business because of piracy. How is adobe still going in that case? I doubt the average user of photoshop was willing to drop hundreds of dollars to purchase a software license off them over the years.
If someone is willing to pirate one game no matter the cost, then they are very likely to pirate all games they play. That doesn't translate into lost sales, they are stopping people who have no interest in making a purchase to begin with.
From the music industry to software industry, you have to ask, are big companies trying to protect their revenue, or profit? I find it hard to sympathize with companies that are disappointed with making only tens to hundreds of millions in profit. Exponential growth is not realistic, it means more monopolies over products and services.
Yes. Make good content, sell it at a fair price, and trust your users. iTunes music store has been DRM-free for years.
I recall an author flooding the relevant network (Bittorent) with an incomplete "pirate" version of her own book.
It did have a measurable (and positive) impact on sales. Not sure how much of a solution that is, but at least it worked this one time.
Have you found a solution to piracy that does involve DRM?
Isn't the underlying problem sufficient and predictable pay to authors, artists, and other creators?
Seems to me DRM addresses this exceedingly poorly.
Morally evil? They’re giving full refunds on the books.
This type of hyperbole makes it hard to take anti-DRM arguments seriously. “It’s a less desirable technology choice” feels more like the right level of angst IMO.
Giving refunds isn't sufficient.
The reason why trades happen is that both sides value what the other party has more. So I value a book more than I value the money the seller wants to charge for it, so I buy it.
So that means that I would lose out with a unilateral unwinding of the trade.
Imagine the outcry if this happened in the financial world: "Yeah, we sold you that stock, but we're taking it back now, you'll be OK because we're giving you the money back." Isn't going to fly.
GP wrote DRM is morally evil, not Microsoft. That MS is giving refunds is nice of them, but doesn't invalidate the problems with DRM in general.
I don't want a refund. I want to keep my books.
"yeah, we take back your transplanted heart but don't worry we will give a refund so it's not immoral"