Thanks for explaining

Posted May 15, 2014 6:47 UTC (Thu) by oldtomas (guest, #72579)
In reply to: Virtual sandbox? by gerv
Parent article: Firefox gets closed-source DRM

> The most likely consequence of pointing out flaws in DRM schemes [...] it's them saying "Well, here's a new set of requirements" - which would be harder [...] to meet and worse for user privacy and control.

So we know what to do. Keep patiently and insistently at it until this whole disgusting mess breaks down under its own weight.

Hey! The emperor is naked!

Or as Ballombe points out in this thread -- it's all smoke and mirrors after all (although gerv is careful to point out that (s)he didn't say that :-)

Don't give up, folks! Poke holes in DRM!

Thanks for explaining

Posted May 15, 2014 17:07 UTC (Thu) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link] (4 responses)

This approach is counter-productive. The more people talk about the limitations of existing DRM schemes, the more pressure there will be to replace them with something even more user-unfriendly.

The idea that the system will "break down under its own weight" is, unfortunately, wishful thinking.

Thanks for explaining

Posted May 16, 2014 6:48 UTC (Fri) by oldtomas (guest, #72579) [Link] (3 responses)

Note: I assume your intentions to be good, and I commend your work done on free software. Thanks for that.

But I strongly disagree on this point. The only viable solution is (IMHO, of course) strong political counter-pressure. And every bit which makes the life of gullets more miserable is a help at this point.

Because what "content industry" wants is docile and willing gullets.

I know, this sounds harsh. It took me a while to reach this conclusion.

Thanks for explaining

Posted May 16, 2014 22:41 UTC (Fri) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link] (2 responses)

When I say "user-unfriendly" I don't just mean more difficult to use, I mean more privacy-invasive, more surveillance-friendly, and more completely taking control of devices away from their users. I'm not confident that going further down that path is the right way to ultimately make things better.

Thanks for explaining

Posted May 17, 2014 7:13 UTC (Sat) by oldtomas (guest, #72579) [Link]

> When I say "user-unfriendly" I don't just mean more difficult to use [...]

Yep. I got that. But that's exactly the point of our disagreement. To put it pointedly, "let's keep the users just at the edge of their confort zone wrt. their tolerance of surveillance and control" amounts to me to slowly boiling the frogs.

Forcing Big Content to show their ugly fangs (as much as possible) just might be a better long-term strategy.

IOW I am convinced that the ugly RIAA lawsuits and carpet-bombing have done more for freedom than Gnash.

Now if constituents could get off their asses and vote those corrupt politicians who play along with secret trade agreements (TTIP, Trans-Pacific) out of office, that would be it.

Sorry for the political tangent, but the root of the problem *is* political, not technical.

Thanks for explaining

Posted May 19, 2014 7:07 UTC (Mon) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link]

The more invasive and ugly the DRM the more people will reject it. And ultimately that has to be the end goal. Companies will give it up when users start flatly refusing to buy it, and not one moment before.

It has to get worse before it will get any better.