All it does is infringe on our rights to be able to do what we want on our own devices. It's crazy.
> All it does is infringe on our rights to be able to do what we want on our own devices.
No, but this is exactly the point of DRM and the legal protections around circumventing it. It never was about copyright protection. Copyright infringement was already illegal before the DMCA, and the introduction of DRM didn't make a dent in the amount of copyright infringement.
The point of making DRM circumvention illegal is for me to be able to sell you a bunch of bits, but ensure that I don't have any commercial competition in regards to how you use those bits. You can't legally make a device that plays DVDs without the blessing of a cartel known as DVD FLLC. You can't legally make a device that plays music from iTunes without the blessing of Apple. Etc. It's about retaining monopolistic control over media distribution and use, by forbidding certain forms of competition in the market.
Getting a law passed that forbids market competition (in many countries! not just the US) under the guise of being about copyright protection, is one of the greatest cons I've ever heard of, but that is what has happened.
I don't think it's the best tool to teach people not to punch each other in the face, but I wouldn't go so far to call it pointless either.
Yet religions still seem be around and getting humans to do dumb things? ;)
DRM is not that - a massive technical effort has gone into implementing DRM deep in system architectures. Modifications have been done across every layer of the stack, across hundreds of companies of differing goals.
You only go to that much effort, at that great a cost, if you are hoping for DRM to actually work, rather than just be a thing you can hold up in court and say "we tried to protect it your honor, we really did".
Weak or nonexistent DRM reduces the provable malicious intent of a ripper. The more effort it takes to break a DRM, the less likely it seems that you don't understand that what you are doing is wrong.
> This PoC was done to further show that code obfuscation, anti-debugging tricks, whitebox cryptography algorithms and other methods of security-by-obscurity will eventually by defeated anyway, and are, in a way, pointless.
It never ceases to amaze me how easy it is to boil frogs, even if the frogs in question are high-IQ, technically sophisticated HN readers.
Right now, you can still circumvent DRM, because you can still buy something that's approximately a general purpose computer (even if it will invariably already come with some remote-acessible hardware level spyware outside your control). But if current trends continue, this will not be the case by the end of the decade.
Also, preventing private individuals from receiving and distributing unauthorized copies is only one way in which DRM is useful to companies.
The movie industry doesn't seems like use it in the same way.
It's kind of silly that normal user was prevented from watch the video normally while pirates do whatever they want becuase the 4k hdmi hdcp can be easily removed by just a dongle.
When I was in college, price was an issue, and piracy was there to save the $10/month for most students, but the alternative was not having the music/software/etc., rather than a legal sale. The actual financial loss was close to zero. I think the reason for DRM isn't so much to prevent profit-losing piracy, as control.
Movie and record companies want to differentiate pricing by market. They want records of who watch what and where. They want to be able to expire things, explicitly or implicitly (if I go Android<->Apple, my iTunes/Google Play collections become less helpful). That has business value.
As for paying customers, when I was a student, they could have milked me for $5. As a professional, I don't really care what it costs, and I don't want to bother with piracy, and I'll do whatever's most ethical. The RIAA just told me what's most ethical is not listening to new music, followed by pirating music, followed by buying music.
I got enough music.
- Pay $20 for a copy that I can't play on all of my devices, and that I may be unable to play at some point in the future if the producer decides they don't want me to anymore.
- Pay $10/month for a streaming service that won't allow me to watch at full resolution on several of my devices, and has no guarantee that the content I want will continue to be available.
- Not consume the media at all.
- Download it from a shady pirate site, but then assuming it actually is what I think it is (which is questionable) be able to use it however I want.
No good options.
The lite version, you cannot use your own mp3s, but it has support for streaming services.
Spotify was removed months ago, but Tidal is available.
It is just so easy to create content now, the signal to noise ratio is pretty low.
It's a pretty effective deterrent if you ask me.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CrackWatch/comments/ieo7u4/crack_wa...
https://www.reddit.com/r/CrackStatus/comments/43dgej/how_den...
What? There's almost no 4K rips for shows or movies. To me it seems it's working pretty well.
I’ve requested several Amazon and Netflix shows and got the pure, not reencoded, unencrypted files.
Yes. It just slows down the less skilled from breaking the protection.
There will always be one or a team of more highly skilled hackers that eventually defeats it.
It always only a matter of time when it gets broken. But again, there's always the analogue hole. [0]