Hacker News Reader

I always want to agree with the viewpoint that digital copies cost nothing, and thus should be free.

I just can't though. You're not paying for a copy, you are contributing towards it's creation.

Creation of content, digital or not, costs money. Sometimes it's an excessive amount (e.g. Blockbuster movies) and sometimes a sane amount (e.g. "regular" and indie moves).

Continuing with the movie examples... Most cameras these days record digitally. Do you expect that, since copying a digital file is free, that the movies should be free? It's entirely digital after all.

I'm hoping you don't, because otherwise you place zero value on the time and effort spent by the crew producing the film and that would be bordering(?) on unethical.

I didn't say they should be free for anyone who didn't pay for them yet. I said they cost nothing to duplicate, therefore there is no need to resort to renting for those who are already paying.

It certainly is making it cheaper for the user, because the publisher is more inclined to make it available cheaply if there is a time limit. But more than that, neither you nor anyone else has yet made an actual argument for why DRM is unethical per se, in all cases.

As I said, in case of digital goods this inclination has no valid basis.

I already explained multiple times why DRM is unethical per se. In short - it's overreaching preemptive policing, that's why it's unethical. DRM in digital sphere is akin to making a police state to prevent crime. Sure, some desire such stuff, but I find it unethical. That's why massive surveillance and DRM issues always converge.

There is a massive, massive difference between NSA surveillance and Netflix using technological measures to ensure you're not copying their content. You have a real, honest choice whether to do business with Netflix and subject yourself to their tracking. They are not an essential service, and they're not even the only provider of video entertainment. You cannot escape the NSA. And you're STILL not actually making an ethical argument, you're just restating your position in different terms.

> There is a massive, massive difference between NSA surveillance and Netflix using technological measures to ensure you're not copying their content.

Massive? I don't see a major difference. You accept running some black box surveillance software which exists because of the mere reason of some publishers considering you a potential criminal (infringer) without any warrant and probable cause, based on them by default not trusting you. Now, why are you suddenly supposed to trust them in return that they aren't going to abuse that?

> When you rent physical goods, do you find it acceptable to be tracked while you use them with some hidden surveillance mechanisms?

Ah, so you're also against most car rentals? They are often GPS tracked to enforce rules about leaving the country and such. I see no problem with this. It is their property, and they want to know where it is.

I'd say, such tracking is not appropriate as well. Except that car example is not like your personal computer. It all depends on the level of the breach of your privacy for the sake of enforcement.