5 ms·

I don't love DRM, but the hyperbole could be notched down. In particular, this cliche: "DRM starts from the premise that all readers are slimeballs and thieves

I don't love DRM, but the hyperbole could be notched down. In particular, this cliche: "DRM starts from the premise that all readers are slimeballs and thieves." Such a dire pronouncement doesn't logically follow. DRM starts from the premise that there exist many slimeballs and thieves. Next, that we should thwart as many as we can with technology, even at the inconvenience of paying customers, presumably yielding greater profit than in the absence of DRM. The first assumption's undeniably true; the second is open to much debate. But "all readers are scum" is a needlessly cynical attitude to read into it.

sp332 14y ago
Well the decision is to treat all customers as criminals, just the same as if we already were criminals.
- Prophasi 14y ago
  How so? Criminals are fined or arrested, not prompted to enter authentication information or sync devices via this approved route. Do you think locking your front door treats everyone else in the entire world as a criminal?
danyork 14y ago
While I grant you that those promoting DRM may in fact start from the premise you state, the end result is that we all wind up being treated as potential thieves. Perhaps it is an overly cynical attitude... but that is how I view it.
- Prophasi 14y ago
  I'm not in the industry, so I'd expect your cynicism to be greater, I suppose. I get that. But to be accurate (if at the expense of nitpicking): "the end result is that we all wind up being treated as potential thieves" We all are potential thieves from the perspective of anyone who doesn't know us; and if you have a valuable good, it's a far more reasonable (and profitable) assessment than "no one is a potential thief." It's the same stance you take when you design a website: "everyone is a potential hacker." A potential thief, however, is not an actual thief, and to repeat what I said above, I don't believe DRM treats users as actual thieves: it treats them as potential thieves until they've authenticated and as honest users afterward. If you have to authenticate annoyingly often, it's a usability problem, but it doesn't change the essential dynamic.

sp332 14y ago

Well the decision is to treat all customers as criminals, just the same as if we already were criminals.

Prophasi 14y ago
How so? Criminals are fined or arrested, not prompted to enter authentication information or sync devices via this approved route. Do you think locking your front door treats everyone else in the entire world as a criminal?

danyork 14y ago

While I grant you that those promoting DRM may in fact start from the premise you state, the end result is that we all wind up being treated as potential thieves. Perhaps it is an overly cynical attitude... but that is how I view it.

Prophasi 14y ago
I'm not in the industry, so I'd expect your cynicism to be greater, I suppose. I get that. But to be accurate (if at the expense of nitpicking): "the end result is that we all wind up being treated as potential thieves" We all are potential thieves from the perspective of anyone who doesn't know us; and if you have a valuable good, it's a far more reasonable (and profitable) assessment than "no one is a potential thief." It's the same stance you take when you design a website: "everyone is a potential hacker." A potential thief, however, is not an actual thief, and to repeat what I said above, I don't believe DRM treats users as actual thieves: it treats them as potential thieves until they've authenticated and as honest users afterward. If you have to authenticate annoyingly often, it's a usability problem, but it doesn't change the essential dynamic.