>The content suppliers will gleefully go with native apps, flash, silverlight, even Emscripten-cross-compiled codecs. With content consumption going mobile, the push for native apps is even stronger.
What's wrong with that? Keep the junk out of the browser!
What's wrong with it is it drives people out of the browser and onto insecure plugins which end up hosting botnets, or it drives people off the browser entirely and into a tablet app.
I don't think getting people in the cultural habit of going to the App Store for all of their needs is beneficial in the long term for the Web. The more you keep people in the browser, the better for the Web.
>What's wrong with it is it drives people out of the browser and onto insecure plugins which end up hosting botnets, or it drives people off the browser entirely and into a tablet app.
Again, what's wrong with that? DRM shouldn't even belong anywhere to begin with. Now suddenly one needs to worry that DRM mechanisms imply security risks because of some native plugins? DRM is insecure and malware/spyware prone by its own definition! You can't have a "healthy" DRM. So there is completely no point to worry about a minor sickness (native plugins), while there is a major one in place (DRM).
If people are set on doing bad risky stuff, having a safer way of doing it is a social good. I don't do heroin, but if people are going to do it anyway, I support giving out clean needles for them.
It is not social good to support unethical things in any way. And needles analogy isn't even proper, since DRM won't become magically more "secure" with EME. EME doesn't remove native DRM code - it just makes the interface with the browser JavaScript based and standard. Black box native DRM code will still be present and will still remain the same security and privacy risk.
(reply to below). Only if you consider DRM unethical. I don't consider non-free software, or DRM software unethical. I consider it shitty, and I am free to ignore it if I want.
You don't have any "right" to non-DRMed content. I say this as a person who hates DRM and who spent most of my youth cracking copyright disk protection on 8 and 16-bit software. I don't have a single atom of love for it, but software producers are perfectly within their rights to do it and you are perfectly within your rights not to buy or consume their content.
I don't have a single atom of love for it, but software producers are perfectly within their rights to do it and you are perfectly within your rights not to buy or consume their content.
I think as a commercial reality that is true, but I also think that to counter abuse there needs to be some form of regulation for content providers who "sell" something with DRM and then mess up the DRM implementation so their customers can't enjoy that purchase fully. There have been far too many cases recently, particularly with software, where someone's DRM has gone way over the line and undermined the basic product.
A consumer doesn't have to buy a DRM'd product, but if they do, they have a right that if they do buy it then they get what they paid for. A regulatory framework that guaranteed an automatic refund of a significant part of the purchase price for every incident/day that use was adversely affected, combined with compensation for both time/distress caused and any actual consequential losses, doesn't seem unreasonable.
If that means that suppliers who insist on installing DRM along with their product and then break someone's computer by getting it wrong wind up paying out far more than they ever charged in the first place, well, perhaps they should consider themselves lucky that they aren't being criminally prosecuted for causing the same harm instead as any other malware distributor would be.
I consider DRM unethical, but even besides that, it by definition implies privacy and security risk. You can't have safe DRM. I'd say producers aren't within their moral rights to push preemptive policing on people. That's where the unethical aspect comes in.
You can't have safe DRM. I'd say producers aren't within their moral rights to push preemptive policing on people.
It's hardly preemptive. People have been illegally ripping off content since forever, and they've been doing it on a potentially business-destroying scale since the Internet became popular. The official law enforcement bodies conveniently sidestep the whole issue by making copyright infringement a civil rather than criminal offence in most places, which also transfers the burden of enforcement onto the copyright holder in most cases, and then the costs of actually bringing a case to court over someone ripping off a $10 movie are prohibitive. The normal mechanisms that are supposed to protect someone who has been wronged under the law have failed.
The content producers are now saying that if you want their content, you have to let them include technical measures to protect their rights because the legal system mostly doesn't. What other choice has society left them? You are still free not to consume their content and the accompanying DRM by buying something else... assuming, of course, that there is a viable business model to produce that "something else" instead.
It's preemptive in a sense of saying "you are criminal (possibly), that's why we put spyware on your computer, lest you try copying our stuff". It is unethical and overreaching. Yes, piracy is a problem for content owners. Preemptive policing though is not a solution.
What other choice has society left them?
Treat customers with respect. That's the only sensible choice they have. It means no DRM. They don't do it, so they shouldn't be surprised that not many customers respect them.
I don't think associating DRM in general with terms like "spyware" is particularly helpful. There is some overlap, of course, but fundamentally most DRM schemes don't install the kinds of keyloggers and such that are usually associated with spyware. That said, I have no problem with regulating what DRM schemes can do by law, so that it's clear that doing actual spyware-like things is illegal, or perhaps requiring that all negative effects of DRM schemes must be prominently disclosed before purchasing, with a mandatory security warning that will discourage consumers from buying.
More generally, if you consider DRM to be preemptive policing and not a solution to content piracy, what do you propose instead? If you've got a better idea that would actually work, I'm sure the content industry would love to know about it. Right now, there aren't a lot of those around.
Edit in response to your extra comment, "Treat customers with respect. That's the only sensible choice they have.":
As with most things in life, respect is earned. Sadly, society as a whole has proven beyond much doubt that it can't collectively be trusted in this respect and a large proportion of people will pirate content if given a chance. People do that for a lot of different reasons, and understanding those reasons is probably key to finding a happier balance for all concerned. However, a significant number of people just see that they can rip off something they want without paying for it and without a high probability of being punished for it, and they do. It's odd, because most of those people wouldn't steal from a store or try to con their neighbour out of their savings. It's just become socially acceptable to a lot of people to pirate content, and I'm not sure that's a good thing at all.
> it can't collectively be trusted in this respect
You are missing an important point - pirates will pirate. That's it. DRM or not - they will. Respect was referring those who are decent people and are willing to support the creators. By not treating these people who are potential customers with respect (by the mere fact of using DRM), content industry hurts itself. But in my view, their inner desire for control outweighs any reason and logic. Otherwise they'd drop all this DRM idiocy already.
By not treating these people who are potential customers with respect (by the mere fact of using DRM), content industry hurts itself.
Yes, it does. I don't think anyone is seriously disputing that. The question isn't whether DRM causes harm, it's whether it also causes a greater benefit for a net win.
But in my view, their inner desire for control outweighs any reason and logic.
You might also want to consider the possibility that the executives running these Big Media giants are well aware of the balancing act we're talking about, have access to much more information about the real costs and benefits of DRM schemes than you or I do, and have made a sound business decision based on the empirical data in front of them.
It's certainly possible that some businesses or executives are naive about this or have made a bad call on a close decision. However, the idea that entire industries operating on the level we're talking about have basically come to the same conclusion, and maintained that view for quite a long time now, despite the significant costs in both cash and reputation of employing DRM techniques... Even with all the nepotism and short-term thinking at the top of big business, that just doesn't fit with your implication that DRM doesn't really make any difference.
You might also want to consider the possibility that the executives running these Big Media giants are well aware of the balancing act we're talking about, have access to much more information about the real costs and benefits of DRM schemes than you or I do, and have made a sound business decision based on the empirical data in front of them.
The logic they use to justify DRM (to the public) is so flawed and based on such bogus numbers of "lost sales", that I have no trust whatsoever in their sincerity or even ability to use common sense. The fact that DRM doesn't stop piracy is well known, yet these content producers pretend that they don't know it.
However if we assume they aren't morons, then it looks like they indeed have some real interest and reason behind DRM, which however has nothing to do with piracy. It can very possibly be related to their desire to control distribution technologies, prevent innovation and protect their business models threatened by the digital world. It drives them to be paranoidally obsessed with DRM (preemptive policing of the first order) and its derivatives like DMCA (preemptive policing of higher orders, which are aimed to stop violating the preemptive policing of the first order - i.e. breaking the DRM). It's easier to see it in DMCA, that it has already completely nothing to do with piracy, but has to do with desire for control, and in retrospect DMCA reveals the real reasoning behind DRM and its unethical nature.
Either way (whether they are just foolish, or they are evil), the public should strongly oppose DRM and DMCA on the ethical grounds.
You're still assuming that the extreme, one-sided positions they present in propaganda, whether in press releases or making a case in court, have anything to do with how they make decisions internally. Assuming that what their marketers say and what their managers actually believe are anything like the same thing seems... unsound.
You're also stating repeatedly that it's a fact that DRM doesn't work but without any sort of evidence or argument to support that position. I'd love to see your hard evidence, because I've been following the industry for years and have yet to see much conclusive proof of anything. The people who have serious empirical data typically keep their cards very close to their chest.
You're also stating repeatedly that it's a fact that DRM doesn't work but without any sort of evidence or argument to support that position.
The proof is available all around - i.e. movies, games, ebooks and etc. released with DRM start getting pirated almost right after the moment they are being released. What kind of other proof you need to see to admit that DRM doesn't affect piracy? If you think otherwise, bring at least one example where DRM prevented illegal copying. Some even bring examples where DRM promoted pirating, creating an incentive to break it. (I.e. when content is offered without DRM there is less incentive to show off by pirating it, than to show off by breaking the DRM and pirating it. CDPR found it out by seeing that the pirated copy of their Witcher game was the cracked DRMed copy of their early retail version, and not their DRM free copy which they sell through GOG. They don't use any DRM since then).
I honestly don't care what DRM proponents in the industry internally believe or base their push for DRM on, since none of those reasons make DRM any more acceptable or ethical. But if you yourself propose to assume they are doing it in bad faith, hiding their real reasons, it should be even a stronger reason to oppose it according to your logic.
The proof is available all around - i.e. movies, games, ebooks and etc. released with DRM start getting pirated almost right after the moment they are being released.
That would only prove that people can pirate the game. It doesn't tell us whether the same number of people actually do or whether any casual copying is deterred because not everyone knows where to look to get a safe pirate version.
What kind of other proof you need to see to admit that DRM doesn't affect piracy?
Something involving hard data on sales and piracy trends with and without DRM. It's obviously impossible to compare like-for-like since you can't launch an identical game to an identical market with and without DRM and see what happens unless you have two versions available at once, which itself distorts the situation. However, you can look for indications of trends. For example, for games where the creator can detect a ratio of legal to cracked copies hitting their servers during on-line play, do titles with DRM significantly improve that ratio or not?
If you think otherwise, bring at least one example where DRM prevented illegal copying.
Assassin's Creed II from Ubisoft was infamous for its always-on DRM and the problems associated with it. The DRM was not cracked for several weeks after launch.
Interestingly, although you say the executives don't listen to anyone, Ubisoft did change their stance on the DRM after the PR disaster associated with the AC2 launch, and toned down the always-online requirement later and in the sequel. The AC2 launch might also be an example where the negative PR was so bad that legitimate sales were hit hard and the excessive DRM was not cost-effective.
> That would only prove that people can pirate the game.
You said it. It means that DRM doesn't do anything useful about pirating. The moment "you can pirate the game", it will be pirated. Or you can put it this way - the moment someone puts a DRM stripped version to bittorrent - it becomes available for anyone who wants to pirate it. And it happens all the time. So, again, what other proof do you need, to admit that DRM doesn't affect piracy?
> It doesn't tell us whether the same number of people actually do or whether any casual copying is deterred
Forget about casual copying. The bulk of pirating happens through the networks like bittorent and the like. If you claim that DRM is needed to stop "casual copying" - it's very silly, since any "pirate" who is determined to copy something won't go to ask friends for casual copies. They'll go to torrent networks. So what good did DRM achieve?
> Something involving hard data on sales and piracy trends with and without DRM
You'll never get hard data, since it's not possible. You can only use heuristics, and they all point in the same direction - DRM does not hurt pirates in the least. It hurts legitimate users.
> Ubisoft did change their stance on the DRM after the PR disaster associated with the AC2 launch
Will, major DRM fiascos happen. SimCity fiasco demonstrated that. Sometimes it's enough to clear their brains, but often not. I meant that in most cases execs don't care at all. As CDPR said in the interview I linked above:
Fortunately and unfortunately at the same time, games are becoming huge business. And as with every growing business, there are a lot of people coming in who… have no clue about games and could work in any other industry. They are not asking themselves the question “What is the experience of a gamer?” Or “Is this proposition fair?” But rather, they just look to see if the column in Excel adds up well or not, and if they can have a good explanation for their bosses. As funny as this might sound, DRM is the best explanation, the best “I will cover my ass” thing. I strongly believe that this is the main reason the industry has not abandoned it until today, and to be frank this annoys me a hell of a lot. You are asking, “So why is it taking so long for them to listen?” The answer is very simple: They do not listen, as most of them do not care. As long as the numbers in Excel will add up they will not change anything.
I agree with that 100%. Because if those execs would care about user experience, DRM wouldn't exist.
And what he said about using piracy/DRM as an excuse for incompetence - that was very well spotted. I.e. imagine someone makes a film, game etc. and gets poor sales. They can admit the product was really not so good, so people don't care to buy it, or these execs can point to others and say - Look, so many sales were lost due to pirates! But with DRM - we did all we could to stop them, so it's not our fault.... I.e. DRM can easily be used as a fake excuse to avoid being blamed for the poor quality of the stuff they produce.
"That would only prove that people can pirate the game."
"It means that DRM doesn't do anything useful about pirating."
I'm sorry, I've tried to be reasonable in this discussion, but if you really can't see why those are completely different statements and the second does not follow from the first then there is little point in continuing this conversation.
I was reasonable. If it's easy to demonstrate that DRM still means people can copy it (the moment DRM is broken, which usually happens pretty fast), it means DRM has no effect on preventing piracy. That's a solid logic and you can put nothing against it.
In essence though it's simply irrelevant, since even if DRM slightly hinders some casual copying as you assumed, it doesn't make its existence justified in the least, and it can't serve as a reason behind pushing such horrible preemptive policing practices on consumers. The bottom line and the practical lesson that we can take out of this discussion was already expressed above. Those who push for DRM must be doing it for other reasons than piracy. And it should be strongly opposed, since DRM has no justification and it's an unethical practice.
I think content industry doesn't want to hear anything - since all was already said. DRM gives them the taste of control, and that matters to them more than piracy (since DRM does nothing to stop piracy, it only irritates legitimate users). But for those who are willing to hear - I already said above. Treat customers with respect, and some of those who pirate now can start buying to show their respect in return.
What's wrong with that? Keep the junk out of the browser!