This is a truly out-of-touch comment. People want their content first and foremost.
Besides, any kind of large-scale user revolt that isn't basically just a mob-like reaction is usually the result of a top-down, coordinated campaign. See the protests against SOPA/PIPA for an example - big websites had to throw their weight behind the idea for it to take hold. The web is simply too diverse and quick moving of a place to expect some kind of people's revolution when it comes to DRM.
I can't speak for the person you're responding to, but it doesn't seem like much of a mystery why non-techies don't know about the specific details of why they can't save a streamed movie to watch it offline, or in a non-approved open source video player. That glib attitude of captive audiences is exactly what DRM vendors prey upon. They know exactly how much they can get away with at this point.
> I can't speak for the person you're responding to, but it doesn't seem like much of a mystery why non-techies don't know about the specific details of why they can't save a streamed movie to watch it offline, or in a non-approved open source video player.
To me, the mystery is not that the people don't know about these details (these details are indeed somewhat complicated - I agree), but how much they don't care.
Non-tech users generally don't have the necessary knowledge and mental models to place technology the market is offering in context of what is possible. They think what's available, even if it's annoying, is the best that's possible. It always looks new and shiny, so it must be the limit of what could be. They don't realize that modern tech could be much more capable, and much more empowering, if not for constant shitty, greedy and people-hostile decisions made by those who make and sell it.
Of course they don't care, why would they be given a chance to? The anti-features, inconveniences and limitations are not advertised and are downplayed whenever anyone mentions them.
That's like saying the blame for pollution caused by burning coal lies squarely on the shoulders of anyone who uses electricity. Decisions are made, 99% of people have no clue what's going, and it's unreasonable to expect them to.
If there's nothing but coal powered electricity generation then vote to change it.
If the company you buy electric from uses more coal than others, then change company.
IMO ordinary members of the public take more responsibility in that because it's relatively straightforward to understand: buy your electric from renewable generation and get less negative environmental impact.
Understanding the best sources of power is hard however, so consumers have to trust published government research for that.
The comment I responded to was quite clear about placing "all" of the blame on consumers, but sure; we all share some responsibility. The problem is that placing the blame on consumers will get you precisely nowhere.
>If there's nothing but coal powered electricity generation then vote to change it.
Most people are struggling just to get by. Expecting their votes to be driven by large, complex issues which on their surface do not seem to impact their lives directly or immediately (or actually don't at all) is wishful thinking. The vast majority of people don't understand these issues to begin with.
>If the company you buy electric from uses more coal than others, then change company
Where do you live where you have competing electrical companies? Of you're proposing that they spend money on e.g. solar or electric cars, well... I think you're a bit out of touch with the general populace. We don't live in a world where paycheck to paycheck workers can afford such things. It has to be cheap and easy or you're just not going to get anywhere. Same goes for something like DRM; until it causes huge problems with the way most people consume content, well, they won't care, and complaining about that is a waste of energy.
Problems like these require smaller groups of dedicated and informed individuals to help make change and educate others. It does actually work. The US has much better environmental policy than it did 50 years ago and people are more informed now then they we're then. It's just slow, and tech related issues are relatively new.
No. The owners of coal mines, and the owners of coal power plants, are to blame. That specific industry has come at a terrible cost of human life and the environment, which wasn't even news last century. The people with the money and power to get a coal plant built, are to blame. I don't have choice in where I get my power. Lobbyists pay politicians to decide where my electricity is generated.
If you started cooking meth tomorrow, and sold it on the market, do you blame the users who bought it? No, the origin of the problem is the industry built around pushing the product.
You're unfortunate if you don't have a choice of where you get your power - we do in the UK - and can readily take action, eg at the ballot box, to change that situation.
Meth isn't really a comparable need. However, suppose dodgy crack (cut with crap), or paracetamol, was available for treating headaches: you can choose the paracetamol which makes you partially responsible for keeping the dodgy crack producers/dealers in business if you choose their product.
> You're unfortunate if you don't have a choice of where you get your power - we do in the UK - and can readily take action, eg at the ballot box, to change that situation.
I live in a representative democracy with extremely limited and polarized choice of politicians, ALL of whom are taking money from big oil. Unfortunate, indeed -- my lack of choice harms the entire world.
And no, meth is a great analogy: sure increases productivity, damn the consequences
I wonder how much of this is simply cognitive overload. I mean, climate change, crispr, ocean acidification, asteroids... I would guess that most people prioritize dopamine first and foremost.
Software is arcane, so thinking about how it affects society probably seems irrelevant to them. Even if they do care, power dynamics make defeatism a logical and realistic mindset.
If you use Netflix as advertised, you don't need to know about DRM; it does its job without being noticeable. Netflix is a streaming service, not a movie store. There's no need for making backups. If you try to use Netflix outside the bounds of your agreement (like copying downloads to a different device), then the DRM becomes visible.
A blockbuster analogy seems adequate and explains why people are satisfied with the way Netflix and Spotify work. DRM isn't restricted to Netflix and Spotify though.
The user is to blame? Let's be realistic about how the average person handles technology in general, is aware of malware on their devices, or how many browser choices they have.
I disagree; good DRM is transparent and unnoticeable, and if that is the case then users do not care.
Who does care about DRM is pirates and content creators whose content is shown without them earning off of it.
Yes I am aware of fair use exceptions, but fair use should exempt a user from getting sued over using a fragment of copyrighted content; it does NOT force a content creator from offering their content open for downloading and republishing, even if it's for fair use.
I disagree; good DRM is transparent and unnoticeable
Yeah, until it isn't.
I can't start GTA V for days since the "Rockstar Social Club" won't connect and glibly informs me that "I need to be on-line"
I would have agreed with you until then. But not being able to play a game for which I paid full price and not being able to get meaningful support to resolve the issue rapidly changed my stance on DRM.
> You never truly own anything that has DRM, you're just licensing it.
The thing that I hate is that the marketing either explicitly says "you own it", or does it implicitly or indirectly, or in a way to make you think that you do.
They never, ever put in big bold letters "License this game for $69.95, today!"; not even when you actually "purchase" does it say "license". In fact, you see the words "purchase" or "buy" or similar; words that have always connotated "ownership".
Now granted, all software, and media in general, has always been a "license" - but there was always something physical around; that if the company or entity that licensed it to you disappeared tomorrow, you could still - theoretically - continue to use the license you had and enjoy the media as intended.
That all really changed with license keys. One would think that the whole DIVX debacle would have made this abundantly clear, but I guess it didn't (makes me wonder if the DivX media format or whatever it was actually wasn't created purposefully to muddy the waters; but that's just conspiracy theory on my part).
I don't even think people will "get it" if tomorrow everybody who "bought music" from iTunes or whatnot lost their licenses with no recourse. I really don't think there'd be anything done, except for some bawling at most.
If everything we have seen over the years, including the various massive data breaches that have occurred recently, hasn't woken anybody up to force reforms and changes that benefit the citizens and consumers, well - nothing will.
Society has basically said "we don't care if we or our children get slaughtered" - where that last word takes on a wide variety of meanings - up to and including its literal meaning.
Those of us out here being force down the chute screaming about the injustice, the wrongness, the reasons why, etc - we are all just so much noise that nobody cares about anymore.
Children getting slaughtered? Oh come on. The simple fact is that movies, music and video games are just not that important. That's why people don't get up in arms about restricted access.
Let's imagine a field. A holy place. People flock for miles, pay the land owner handsomely to visit the field.
A judge says that everyone has a right to take a single photo of this field for their collection - no more than that. The land owner disagrees.
We're not saying that the land owner should be forced to provide small organza bags for the visitors to carry their cameras around with them; but posting armed guards at all the entrances with metal detectors, automatedly initiating legal action on anything that looks like a camera and then trying to tell the user it's for their own good... well, this should at the very least be discouraged by the community, no?
> good DRM is transparent and unnoticeable, and if that is the case then users do not care.
Then there's no such thing as good DRM, since many users will want to make use of the content they've paid for (either monetarily, or perhaps indirectly via ads) in flexible and open ways that a proprietary DRM system will not allow. Fair use is part of this, but not the only issue.
Meanwhile I bet everyone here and /r/gaming uses Steam without thinking about it where you can't even click and drag an .exe to your buddy on a long flight and you need to log into it every X days for it to let you play offline.
To be clear, I'm definitely happy to support gog.com and thankful that they exist and are successful.
But look how many HNers will bring up Kindles and buying books for them on Amazon where you can only "lend" a book from kindle to kindle (forget drag and drop) through their proprietary system.
Every day 90%+ of people are happy with systems that use DRM and don't even notice it exists. Most people just don't ever go off the rails.
It's one of the worse things about DRM: trying to position your product as DRM-free and people just go "wtf is that? it never bothered me before."
No such thing as good DRM. All DRM is broken by design, and exists to take your rights away. Never make excuses for this garbage software. DRM must die.
