DRM Will Be Gone By 2025, Predicts Cory Doctorow (theregister.co.uk)

An anonymous reader writes: It's been two years since Cory Doctorow joined the EFF's campaign to eliminate DRM within 8 years -- and he still believes it'll happen. "Farmers and the Digital Right To Repair Coalition have done brilliantly and have a message which is extremely resonant with the political right as well as the political left." And now even the entertainment industry seems to oppose extending the DMCA to tractors. "The entertainment industry feels very proprietary towards laws that protect DRM. They really feel that they lobbied for and bought these laws in order to protect the business model they envisioned. For these latecomer upstarts to turn up and stretch and distort these laws out of proportion has really exposed one of the natural cracks in copyright altogether."
Doctorow also says that "If there's anything good that might come of Brexit, it's that the UK will renegotiate and reevaluate its relationship to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and other directives. The UK enjoys a really interesting market position if it wants to be the only nation in the region that makes, exports, and supports DRM-breaking tools."

Comments

I agree for different reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM will be gone because most of us will be using devices in walled gardens and will have to get content from the iTunes, Amazon, Play, whatever.

Now jail broken devices or Linux? Well, you are gonna have to get your stuff from sources that have broken the walled garden content - and risk getting rooted, crap content, or something.

Re:I agree for different reasons

[Applehu Akbar]

And ordinary users are willingly gravitating to walled gardens because of the increased security.

Re:I agree for different reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

...because of the false sense of security.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:I agree for different reasons

[TheRaven64]

There's only one thing that will kill DRM: when content producers realise how much power it gives to content distributors. DRM on music is completely gone now. Why? Because the big four record labels realised that requiring DRM was giving Apple a much stronger negotiating position than them (want your music to work on iPods? You had to agree to Apple's terms or provide your music DRM free). With TV movies, we're increasingly seeing Netflix and Amazon get a similarly strong position. Netflix maintains streams for around 80 different types of device, including a load of set-top boxes that don't have upgradable firmware. Want to reach those customers? License your content to Netflix or allow it to be distributed without DRM (pretty much anything can play back plain H.264).

I quite enjoy the fact that the organisations insisting on DRM are the ones most harmed by it.

Re: I agree for different reasons

[Entrope]

Those walled gardens can only exist through DRM mechanisms. They were created specifically to make DRM more pervasive on the computing platform. Apple, for example, wants to be the only company that can authorize applications to run on iOS.

Re:I agree for different reasons

[geekmux]

And ordinary users are willingly gravitating to walled gardens because of the increased security.

Increased security my ass. People don't give a shit about security. Ordinary users are fucking lazy, and are "willingly gravitating" towards anything that can do everything for them without lifting a finger.

Voice activated assistants and press-to-order buttons hanging on the wall are two prime examples of just how lazy people have become. Getting online to search and order a product manually is considered hard labor for the Siri generation.

Re:I agree for different reasons

[cfalcon]

> Increased security my ass. People don't give a shit about security. Ordinary users are fucking lazy

I disagree.

Personal anecdote: My mom started using the internet in the late 90s / early 2000s. Every time I visited her, I'd have to clean up all kinds of stuff for her. It was a constant nest of toolbars and other random shit she clicked on. She would sometimes install security updates, sometimes not, but there was always a nest of vipers under the hood of her laptop. She had no idea how to fix that, but she was aware it was an issue.

Eventually, she got a Macbook. She LOVED that Macbook, and used it for over ten years. She never had that malware issue with the Macbook, obviously. Mostly, now she uses ios devices.

She was motivated to keep crap off her machine, but she wasn't motivated enough to jump through the hoops needed to achieve enough mastery of her system that she could tell the difference between good and bad choices. When presented an option that offered her more security at a higher price, she took it. The ability to be her own sysadmin was not that amazing compared to her apparent ability to be tricked into installing crap.

Nowadays, she would be safer with a Windows box than she was back then. But that ship has sailed, and she's still much safer with her ios stuff than she ever was on an open platform.

I don't know how representative her case is, but I imagine, reasonably. There's definitely users who wish their machine was more secure, and of the set that don't have a need for advanced features, and can afford a proprietary solution, walled gardens are viewed as a boon.

Re:I agree for different reasons

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

There's only one thing that will kill DRM: when content producers realise how much power it gives to content distributors.

But these are increasingly the same people. TV production companies are running their own online streaming services. Bands are providing digital downloads from their own web sites or via marketplaces that work for them. Authors are self-publishing e-books.

It is probably in the interests of both smaller creator/distributors and streaming services for something equivalent to DRM to exist.

DRM on music is completely gone now. Why?

Because you can sell copies of music tracks at sub-dollar impulse purchase prices and still make a profit anyway. Sadly, that is not true for many other kinds of creative works.

I quite enjoy the fact that the organisations insisting on DRM are the ones most harmed by it.

People keep saying things like this, but believe it or not, the executives running these massively successful businesses are neither stupid nor ignorant. If DRM was causing them obvious harm, it would be gone faster than their next quarterly earnings report.

Re: I agree for different reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple, for example, wants to be the only company that can authorize applications to run on iOS.

Sadly, to many people that is a feature.

Re:I agree for different reasons

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The conclusions of Doctorow seem to be based on fantasy, especially about the UK.

Yes, this just looks like wishful thinking.

Brexit might mean that changes to the law to better allow for some reasonable personal uses, which were blocked a little while ago, could be viable. That would be a good thing, I think.

However, I see no sign of any political will for more fundamental changes that would undermine DRM. Most of the talk is always about strengthening copyright protection and supporting the creative industries, which are a significant part of the UK economy.

Depressingly, the on-the-record high level discussions show that many politicians and bureaucrats just see the whole thing as a numbers game. If someone tells them this or that provision of IP law will raise more business revenue, typically they don't even consider whether the basic premise of restricting people's actions by law is reasonable or appropriate for our modern online age, never mind any subtleties about balancing incentives for creators with freedom for the general public.

Re:I agree for different reasons

[sanf780]

DRM are a necessary evil if you want a rental market. Rentals and/or borrowing have been used a lot for movies and books, as many movies and many books are the kind of "read once" type (however, this is another story). With the ability to easily copy and distribute digital media, it is hard to tell if extra copies are being made unlawfully. DRM is the solution to this question that we have right now. And it is fairly restrictive, as you cannot have your movies and books in the media you want.

I believe that even dead tree media can have restrictions at a time. Want to read the latest best-seller that is only made available in hardcover format instead of your preferred paperback? Well, somebody decided for you how you are going to consume the media.

In my opinion, the "buy" option that has DRM is a fairly bad proposal for the buyer. It is basically a perpetual license to the media with the risks of depending on what the media provider company is doing. If the provider is gone, so are your licenses.

So, I know DRM is evil and we do not want that. What are the alternatives that can keep traditional shops open? I am all ears.

Re:I agree for different reasons

[brunes69]

If what you say were true, then all of the Netflix-original shows, which they maintain near total control over, would not have DRM. But they do.

Re:I agree for different reasons

[serviscope_minor]

People keep saying things like this, but believe it or not, the executives running these massively successful businesses are neither stupid nor ignorant

  This is demonstrably not true. With just about every major, the industry has declared that it will be the death of them. Remember video tape players being like Jack the Ripper? That want even the first. Piano rolls were going to be the death, as has just about everything new since then.

The industries have demonstrably survived however, and things like videos proved wildly profitable.

So no, your claim is not correct. The executives have a proven track record of having no insight, simply wishing to protect the model as it is today.

Re:I agree for different reasons

[mark-t]

You contradict yourself.

First you say ...

DRM will be gone...

And then you say that we...

...will have to get content from the iTunes, Amazon, Play, whatever.

If you cannot see how these two notions are mutually exclusive, then I'm not sure you understand what either actually is.

Re:I agree for different reasons

[Ol Olsoc]

Eventually, she got a Macbook. She LOVED that Macbook, and used it for over ten years. She never had that malware issue with the Macbook, obviously.

Exactly. As well, the Unix based MacOS is designed to allow power users to bash around as much as they like. In addition, the interface is more stable.

When presented an option that offered her more security at a higher price, she took it.

And for all that, the higher price isn't all that high when you deal with the whole package. My iMac is in the same league pricewise with the HP Envy my wife got me for Christmas. Both very nice quality.

Speaking of the wife, she now does her own maintenance on her Linux Mint Laptop, which is also pretty darn secure, and also works after updates.

The ability to be her own sysadmin was not that amazing compared to her apparent ability to be tricked into installing crap.

There seems to be a running theme among many in here. That unless you have at a bare minimum, power user cred, you deserve every bad thing that happens to you on line. Considering who we are, that's sort of understandable, but it completely ignores the overwhelming majority of computer users. And the mentality of most humans. We've had adequate proof over the years of that fact. Either safer operating systems, or a hellava lot fewer people using them.

There's definitely users who wish their machine was more secure, and of the set that don't have a need for advanced features, and can afford a proprietary solution, walled gardens are viewed as a boon.

I sit here at breakfast, writing on a Chromebook, speaking of closed gardens, and am very happy to do so. I don't want to have to be concerned about the shit I might catch on a wifi connection in public. I go home and use the Mac or the Windows machine, or the Linux laptops around the house or in the workshop. Each has a use, and I know darn well which is more vulnerable.

Re:I agree for different reasons

[guruevi]

Protecting the owner from liability is already a thing. If you modify your medical device and it kills you, that's your own damn fault, nothing the medical industry can do about that. The only thing DRM on things like medical devices does is make sure you cannot legally investigate for flaws or improve the product if it is.

For two you don't need DRM for that. You need proper server-side controls. Once you have sent a piece of data off to or through an uncontrolled environment, you've already lost.

Re:I agree for different reasons

[geekmux]

> Increased security my ass. People don't give a shit about security. Ordinary users are fucking lazy

I disagree.

Personal anecdote: My mom started using the internet in the late 90s / early 2000s. Every time I visited her, I'd have to clean up all kinds of stuff for her. It was a constant nest of toolbars and other random shit she clicked on. She would sometimes install security updates, sometimes not, but there was always a nest of vipers under the hood of her laptop. She had no idea how to fix that, but she was aware it was an issue.

Eventually, she got a Macbook. She LOVED that Macbook, and used it for over ten years. She never had that malware issue with the Macbook, obviously. Mostly, now she uses ios devices.

She was motivated to keep crap off her machine, but she wasn't motivated enough to jump through the hoops needed to achieve enough mastery of her system that she could tell the difference between good and bad choices. When presented an option that offered her more security at a higher price, she took it. The ability to be her own sysadmin was not that amazing compared to her apparent ability to be tricked into installing crap.

Nowadays, she would be safer with a Windows box than she was back then. But that ship has sailed, and she's still much safer with her ios stuff than she ever was on an open platform.

I don't know how representative her case is, but I imagine, reasonably. There's definitely users who wish their machine was more secure, and of the set that don't have a need for advanced features, and can afford a proprietary solution, walled gardens are viewed as a boon.

I hate to say it, but your example essentially validates my point. This example of obtaining a Macbook was nothing more than pressing the "easy" button, which essentially defined the motivational level.

Yes, most users want a secure solution. The problem with pointing to walled gardens is most users don't even have a clue what the term "walled garden" even means, so they sure as hell aren't buying hardware because of it. They're choosing solutions because they're easier to use.

Re:I agree for different reasons

[Applehu Akbar]

...because of the false sense of security.

There, fixed that for you.

When a walled garden operator the size of Google or Apple lets malware through, it gains immediate and massive notoriety. The problem gets detected and fixed much faster than it does for that direct-from-developer program you downloaded off her site.

Re:I agree for different reasons

[Applehu Akbar]

My mom loves her MacBook Pro, latest of my hand-me-down systems, for the same reason. Today, at age 95, she doesn't want the risk of getting ransomware from an errant download.

Re:I agree for different reasons

[BronsCon]

press-to-order buttons hanging on the wall

...

prime examples

I see what you did there...

Re: I agree for different reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple, for example, wants to be the only company that can authorize you to run applications on iOS.

FTFY.

Remember Apple only delegates certain permissions to their device "owners". You can't do anything on those devices beyond turning them on, unless Apple grants you that ability.

If they want to they can disable the device by via a remote reset to trigger an activation lock, then refuse to activate it. It's the sole reason why Apple should have lost that lawsuit made by the FBI. They (Apple) claims that the end user is responsible for the device, but they also maintain their greater-than-the-end-user-will-ever-have control over it. It would be very interesting to see Apple found legally liable for any and all crimes originating from their devices because of that. That may give you a DRM free world at least at the hardware level, by making it too financially / legally risky to lockout the user completely, but I'd imagine we'd get EULAFAA (End User License Agreement For All Act) that shifted all legal liability to the powerless end users as profit protectionist, pro-incarceration legislation before that.

Re: I agree for different reasons

[ausekilis]

Those walled gardens can only exist through DRM mechanisms. They were created specifically to make DRM more pervasive on the computing platform. Apple, for example, wants to be the only company that can authorize applications to run on iOS.

With that comes the ability to skim 30% of each and every sale for those platforms. Own the platform, own the distribution, leech off sales.

Re:I agree for different reasons

[Rakarra]

Yes, most users want a secure solution. The problem with pointing to walled gardens is most users don't even have a clue what the term "walled garden" even means, so they sure as hell aren't buying hardware because of it. They're choosing solutions because they're easier to use.

For most people, computers are a curious tool, but they are NOT worth investing time into just to make them work properly. They want something that is simple and easy while doing what they want.

Re: I agree for different reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

And what is wrong with wanting ease of use? I don't want to have to mess around with my tools to get them to work. I buy a computer to get things done. What I do doesn't nessesitate full fine level control over my machine. If what you does, then you should buy the appropriate tool.

Re:I agree for different reasons

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The executives have a proven track record of having no insight, simply wishing to protect the model as it is today.

One of those does not follow from the other. If the current model is working for them and they can protect it, why wouldn't they?

It seems that your argument is based primarily on what industry people say in marketing and/or lobbying efforts. It's important to remember that those are about putting forward the message they think will work best, which is not necessarily what they actually believe or what their data actually tells them. As I said before, if DRM were demonstrably harming their revenues as many of its critics claim, they would have dropped it long ago.

Re:I agree for different reasons

[Waccoon]

Eventually, she got a Macbook. She LOVED that Macbook, and used it for over ten years. She never had that malware issue with the Macbook, obviously. Mostly, now she uses ios devices.

That has nothing to do with DRM. That has to do with the fact the default MacOS browser doesn't let you install stuff with a click like those other browsers will. It's harder to install software when the OS is just naturally hostile towards (but does not totally block) 3rd party solutions.

I used Macs for many years when I was at college, owned a couple myself, and stopped using them entirely for this and many other reasons.

Re:I agree for different reasons

[Waccoon]

Remember video tape players being like Jack the Ripper? That want even the first. Piano rolls were going to be the death, as has just about everything new since then.

Piano rolls cannot be copied at almost zero cost, and analog videotapes cannot be copied indefinitely, so these analogies don't help when applied to digital downloads.

Re:I agree for different reasons

[zippthorne]

Nowadays, she would be safer with a Windows box than she was back then. But that ship has sailed, and she's still much safer with her ios stuff than she ever was on an open platform.

Two years ago she'd have been safer with the windows box, but now the windows box itself is the attacker.

Re:I agree for different reasons

[serviscope_minor]

One of those does not follow from the other. If the current model is working for them and they can protect it, why wouldn't they?

For the same reason that King Canute thought it was a silly idea to order the tide to turn back. He knew it would be awesome to have that amount of power. He was wise enough to know he didn't. Just because you want to, doesn't mean you can. History is littered with the attempts of people trying to stand in the way of it.

The thing is, copyright law is already strong enough to cover these new evil killer techs. By refusing to acknowledge that MP3s were the future, they ended up ceding vast amounts of control over to Apple, control they could have had themselves.

Then they still have this rather anachronistic idea of region based licensing. It's the old model, but it looks a little silly on the internet. They're going to lose heaps of money to piracy before they finally realist that simply selling things to people when they want them at a reasonable price is the way to profit.

But they want to protect their current model at all costs.

As I said before, if DRM were demonstrably harming their revenues as many of its critics claim, they would have dropped it long ago.

You keep saying it, but I'll need some evidence of this. They give the full appearance of wanting things to stay exactly the same as they are and have a dreadful track record of trying to prevent the future while damaging themselves.

Re:I agree for different reasons

[serviscope_minor]

Piano rolls cannot be copied at almost zero cost, ...? Those who don't know history etc etc...

With musicians you have to pay them every time to do a performance. The performance once on a piano roll can indeed be duplicated at almost zero cost as the performance can then be given a thousand or so times at almost no cost.

You've forgotten the historical context about copying music, and assumed it always applied to media, not the actual music itself. It was thought it would destroy the music industry because piano players would barely be needed any more.

so these analogies

They're not analogies. They are demonstrably false claims the media industries have made in the past with regards to new technology.

Re:I agree for different reasons

[TheRaven64]

Why? It's in Neftlix's interest for Netflix to have control over the channel, which is what Netflix DRM gives them. It's just not in the interests of content producers other than Netflix.

Re:I agree for different reasons

[TheRaven64]

But these are increasingly the same people. TV production companies are running their own online streaming services. Bands are providing digital downloads from their own web sites or via marketplaces that work for them. Authors are self-publishing e-books.

It doesn't work that way. DRM requires huge economies of scale (it's not worth developing a DRM scheme for a single album, you won't get enough devices to support it). Your choices are to either go through a distributor like Amazon or Apple who will use their own DRM model and gain the strong negotiating position, or license a DRM scheme from a company like Adobe or Microsoft and give them the same control.

Re:I agree for different reasons

[cfalcon]

> Two years ago she'd have been safer with the windows box, but now the windows box itself is the attacker.

She doesn't care about any of that. She knows I do though, lol.

Re:I agree for different reasons

[cfalcon]

> This example of obtaining a Macbook was nothing more than pressing the "easy" button, which essentially defined the motivational level.

Her switching to Mac was only easy from a *security* perspective. It was more expensive, and she just walked away from any software she used to have that needed Windows. Granted, there wasn't a lot, but still. Swapping ecosystems at (comparatively) high cost made it easier for her to do everything she really needed, without the malware that she knew she would always be tricked into installing (and back then, drive-by malware that didn't require any user mistakes, was a lot more common).

Re:I agree for different reasons

[cfalcon]

> That unless you have at a bare minimum, power user cred, you deserve every bad thing that happens to you on line.

This is a semi-valid argument. Power users are a lot more familiar with what kinda goes on behind the scenes, and safely locking down something like the internet is either very hard or impossible, depending on the scope of your need. With this as an apparent physical reality, expecting a safe computer ecosystem is a lot like expecting safety on a mountainous region with numerous cliffs. "Why, you'd need to install a thousand miles of guard rails, and that would make it really inconvenient for those of us who carry parachutes around and often take the fast way down!"

But when someone proposes to do exactly that, and does it, and gets wild cheers, we look more like trailblazers and less like pioneers, more interested in adapting to the wild than in making the wild safe for everyone.

Basically, the online security model of Windows was a running joke until Vista, and still a serious issue for a few years after that, and still AN issue today. Meanwhile, running OS X or any type of Linux is almost an immunity to most of that drama, and has been for years. But Linux as a group has a pretty steep learning curve- there's a reason it is a top pick among professionals and hobbyists and not many others.

> the higher price isn't all that high when you deal with the whole package

Some people figure out how to keep their box pretty clean after a few run-ins with danger. Others will ultimately have to deal with those costs- either externalize them because the neighbor's son can fix stuff up for nothing (or for cookies), or drag them to some dumb shop that charges a hundred bucks to run hours of cleaning tools and crap, or just decide that after a couple years a PC is done, and you have to buy a new one. When a solution like an iPad, chromebook, or just Macbook presents itself, you are a lot more likely to take into account that total cost of ownership.

And right now on TCO, Windows 10 looks pretty reasonable- though I'd argue that this is mostly because people don't put an appropriate cost on what advertisements do to them, and don't put an appropriate cost on what their user telemetry is worth to keep private. At the very least, it's not as ludicrous as having javascript 0 days writing your drive as root, as Windows universally was up until Vista.

Re:I agree for different reasons

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Just because you want to, doesn't mean you can.

Right, but as you pointed out yourself, Big Media still seems to be doing just fine financially, so apparently they can.

Then they still have this rather anachronistic idea of region based licensing. It's the old model, but it looks a little silly on the internet.

Why? Most people don't even realise when it's happening, and there are different situations in different places. Taxes alone can easily make 20-30% difference in the real cost of something from one place to another. And of course some markets have lower cost of living and spending power, so advertising at your normal price for a well developed first world area in those markets might just be a waste of time.

You keep saying it, but I'll need some evidence of this.

We have pretty clear evidence in my little businesses that not even full DRM but just making it more or less obvious how to download and save things on a web site has a dramatic effect on how many people do it (dramatic as in almost an order of magnitude). It's inconceivable that the big players in a multi-billion dollar industry don't have vastly more and more detailed data than anything my little systems can tell me.

They give the full appearance of wanting things to stay exactly the same as they are and have a dreadful track record of trying to prevent the future while damaging themselves.

It's rather ironic that perhaps the most successful uses of new technologies for distributing content have been the streaming media libraries like Netflix and Spotify, which of course both use DRM to help enforce their pricing model. If my businesses were "damaging" themselves as lucratively as Netflix, I'd probably be pretty happy.

Re:I agree for different reasons

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

There are ways to set up DRM that don't rely on single providers like that. In fact, you pretty much have to if you're distributing content on the Web, because no single DRM scheme works reliably on all popular platforms.

Of course, if you actually are a large creator/distributor like Netflix, it certainly would be viable to implement your own scheme if you wanted to as well.

Re:I agree for different reasons

[beastofburdon]

Just keep telling yourself that. After all, the more you say it the more you believe it. The rest of us will stick with reality.

Re:I agree for different reasons

[serviscope_minor]

Right, but as you pointed out yourself, Big Media still seems to be doing just fine financially, so apparently they can.

I don't dispute that. Basically people want what they're producing and existing copyright law is general enough to protect them well enough whatever technological comes along.

However, they have an excellent track record of trying to suppress tech, ultimately giving in then making out like bandits. Those years where they spent money trying to suppress it they could have instead been making money from it.

Why? Most people don't even realise when it's happening

They used to do it with films, where even in the UK we'd get things many months after the US. They tried to do it with Game of Thrones. End result, people didn't want to wait and the most piracy ever seen ensued.

If, oh, I dunno, they sold it for a reasonable price when people wanted to watch it, they'd have made out like bandits. Instead they stuck to the obsolete regional model and failed to cash in nearly as much as they could.

We have pretty clear evidence in my little businesses that not even full DRM but just making it more or less obvious how to download and save things on a web site has a dramatic effect on how many people do it

No, it's more than that. What killed Napster etc was when the music world finally realised that selling nice, easy, DRM free MP3s for a reasonable price was actually a good idea. Make it possible for people to get what they want, make it a reasonable price and don't try to abuse them and guess what? They'll spend money.

Thing is they're ultimately fighting against themselves. If I go to amazon for music, I get a better product: it's well categorised, easy to find, of a guaranteed compression quality, comes with all the right tags etc etc. Piracy is cheaper, but it's more effort (my time is valuable) and, frankly, I am happy to pay. I like the work after all. Most people are generally honest.

Currently video is worse or at best comparable to pirated stuff, but mostly worse.

It's inconceivable that the big players in a multi-billion dollar industry don't have vastly more and more detailed data than anything my little systems can tell me.

You are arguing that executives are work in a fiercely rational way in the company's (not their personal) interests. That's frankly absurd on so many levels.

If my businesses were "damaging" themselves as lucratively as Netflix, I'd probably be pretty happy.

You're moving the goalposts now. If they could double their revenue for example with a simple tweak to the terms, then they ought to do it, no matter how well they're doing.

Re:I agree for different reasons

[Ol Olsoc]

This is a semi-valid argument.

Well, I'm a semi-valid kind of guy! 8^)

Power users are a lot more familiar with what kinda goes on behind the scenes, and safely locking down something like the internet is either very hard or impossible, depending on the scope of your need. With this as an apparent physical reality, expecting a safe computer ecosystem is a lot like expecting safety on a mountainous region with numerous cliffs.

I can't really argue too much with that point. While I don't blame them particularly, and tell the people I assist to think of using the internet is like getting romantic with someone you pick up at the bar at closing time or someone living under a bridge - if you don't protect yourself, You're gonna catch something you don't want at all, I'm constantly amazed at how cavilier many people can be.

Basically, the online security model of Windows was a running joke until Vista, and still a serious issue for a few years after that, and still AN issue today. Meanwhile, running OS X or any type of Linux is almost an immunity to most of that drama, and has been for years. But Linux as a group has a pretty steep learning curve- there's a reason it is a top pick among professionals and hobbyists and not many others.

I am at the (lunatic?) fring of the Personal computing world, and Although I got a nice shiny new Windows 10 Laptop for some software I had to run that was Windows only, the only stuff I use on it is the program I need, a few others that run in conjunction with it, a throwawy email account and that's about it. No personal info except my name on the email account. Don't buy anything using it, or subscribe It's pretty useless. My Breakfast laptop is a Chromebook, with the same setup. I use it to read Slashdot. Anything I do other than that is on MacOS or Linux.

When a solution like an iPad, chromebook, or just Macbook presents itself, you are a lot more likely to take into account that total cost of ownership.

Exactly. This is one of the things that so many computer people simply don't understand, or don't want to. Just from replacement, I always replaced my Windows machines at 4 years, and My Macs a 6 years. I just cleaned up an i3 Windows computer for a woman that was 2 years old, and infested badly. She was ready to write out the check for a new one.

And right now on TCO, Windows 10 looks pretty reasonable- though I'd argue that this is mostly because people don't put an appropriate cost on what advertisements do to them, and don't put an appropriate cost on what their user telemetry is worth to keep private.

I was really disappointed. When I first tried out Windows 10, I was pretty happy. I coud make it look and work like I wanted, I could find what I needed to maintain it without the facacta whack a mole Windows 8 mess. Then when the updates started hosing systems, and when I sussed out the extent of the telemetry and how damn hard yo have ot fight Microsoft, even when you max out their so called security options was whne I turned on it, and kept with the minimal information setup.

Sure!

[fph il quozientatore]

And proprietary software will be gone by 2030.

Re: Sure!

[fph il quozientatore]

Humanity.

Re:Sure!

[Kohath]

And seriously predicting the future will be gone by 2027. People will look back on all the predictions in the last 20 years and finally conclude it's not something serious people should do -- at least not with a specific deadline year.

Re:Sure!

[Gravis Zero]

And proprietary software will be gone by 2030.

YES! 2030 will be the year of the Linux desktop! ;)

Re: Sure!

[spikenerd]

Stupid people! Whoa, 2040 is going to be amazing! Too bad I wasn't invited =(.

Re:Sure!

[John.Banister]

Except, in Q2 2028, remaining tops of desks will be deprecated in favor of enhanced vision personal work environments. Employees will be provided a 73 cubic inch cubby in the wall of their cubicle for personal effects, so long as they have the courtesy to install an easily removable cubby liner before storing any objects.

Re:Sure!

[OYAHHH]

Didn't you say the same thing, different year referenced, in 1995.

Been hearing this refrain since at least that year. It's been 27 years now and that "dream" is at best partially implemented.

So, you have set a pretty ambitious schedule, 13 years, given 27 years hasn't been enough to date.

Re: Sure!

[BronsCon]

How do you think we got rid of religion?

Re:Sure!

[BronsCon]

What the politicians supporting the laws to enforce such policies failed to understand is that, since the employee is expected to furnish their own cubby liner, the liner is, itself, a personal effect and can not be installed in the cubby prior to the installation of said employee-provided cubby liner. This, of course, renders the availability of said cubbies moot, as the employee can never actually put anything in them.

This is our future.

Re:Sure!

[John.Banister]

It simplifies the downsizing a smidge while allowing the company to say they made a provision for their employees.

Re:Sure!

[AnalogDiehard]

And proprietary software will be gone by 2030.

Nobody thought a paperless toilet would become reality, but here it is.

A bunch of jiberish

[Anonymous Coward]

I read the article and this guy never really addresses what comes next after DRM. Obviously you will get very little good content if DRM goes away and artists begin to basically give away their creations. Sadly their is more and more people who will take advantage of anything they can get for free then paying for. Nobody feels obligated to pay the artist. Then they use some excuse as they do it because of government control, or big business control. Maybe DRM will go away, but protecting what you created and worked hard to develop will not. To expect that everything will be open sourced and freely available is not accepting reality.

Re: A bunch of jiberish

[Entrope]

Yeah, the UK will be the only country in the world to authorize DRM-tools... And then they'll get sanctioned like Antigua & Barbados almost got sanctioned over Slysoft's AnyDVD, or an international court will authorize unlicensed copying of UK-authored works. Unlike countries that have been sanctioned like that before, the UK has quite a lot of valuable copyrighted works. Doctorow is, as is often true when it comes to political topics, delusional.

Re:A bunch of jiberish

[GrumpySteen]

Obviously you will get very little good content if DRM goes away and artists begin to basically give away their creations.

Which is why there was very little good content before the first DRM was introduced in 1983?

Not imposing DRM is not the same as artists giving away their creations. Home taping did not kill the music industry. VCRs did not kill the movie industry.
 

Re:A bunch of jiberish

[TheRaven64]

Obviously you will get very little good content if DRM goes away and artists begin to basically give away their creations

Why is that obvious? There are two stages involved in consumers getting good content. Step one, someone has to create it. Step two, someone has to distribute it. The first step is difficult and (often) expensive. The second step is basically free with the Internet. If your economic model is to do the first step for free and then charge people for the second, then you're going to have problems.

This is not how content creators actually work, typically. They provide a sample (chapter of a book, pilot for a TV show, whatever) for free and then a content distributor (TV channel, publisher, and so on) pays them up front enough to create the full work, in exchange for the rights to try to make money from distribution. It's easy to imagine cutting out the middle man. Put the pilot for a TV show online for free (pilots are fairly cheap to produce, because they typically don't have the special effects done by the time that they're made available to networks) and then ask people to fund the whole thing. When it's finished, make it available for free and ask for funding for the next season or sequel - the fact that it's freely redistributable makes it easy for fans to share copies with other people who might want to pay for the next project (whether it's a direct sequel or something else from the same creator).

Re: A bunch of jiberish

[Entrope]

I heard somewhere that Video Killed The Radio Star. However, these crazy record companies want Money For Nothing, while the people who used to say "I Want My MTV" now wonder where the music went. When the system burns down, who will be able to honestly say, "We Didn't Start The Fire"?

Re:A bunch of jiberish

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Home taping did not kill the music industry. VCRs did not kill the movie industry.

Home taping and VCRs also didn't allow a single source to provide unlimited 100% perfect reproduction of the original works and redistribution of those copies to large numbers of people within a matter of hours.

It's reasonable to debate how copyright should work, or even whether it should be replaced, in our modern age. However, it won't get us anywhere to talk about the concerns of 2017 in the context of the technology of 1987.

Re:A bunch of jiberish

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

You're describing the crowd-sourcing model. That is one of the more interesting and reasonable possible alternatives to the current regime, but on the evidence so far it seems to be about 1-2 orders of magnitude less effective at raising funding to supporting creating that new content.

Re:A bunch of jiberish

[mark-t]

DRM was introduced as a retaliation by industries as unforeseen copying technologies were being increasingly used to disregard copyright law with no real ability to prosecute all but the few who were practicing it on an industrial scale. Good content without DRM was popular before the 80's because there weren't enough private individuals disregarding copyright regularly that the industries particularly cared... or at least cared enough to want to do something about it.

I'm not suggesting that DRM was a fair retaliation by those industries, I'm just saying that pointing out that it wasn't always around as an argument for why it shouldn't be necessary today is not entirely a valid argument, because there was, in fact, a reason behind it.... Copyright was supposed to grant its holder a monopoly on controlling who could copy a work, and as technology advanced, it was becoming increasingly impossible for the law to enforce a significant number of actual infractions (today it is entirely impossible in all but the same large scale industrial practices that some companies tried to get away with before DRM when they were caught). That one may not place enough importance on what those industries may have wanted or intended to fail to see this reason is entirely immaterial.

The real cure to piracy is to make the legitimate content as easy or convenient for anyone to access as the pirated content is. Adding DRM to content takes it further away from this goa l (at least for some people), not closer.

Re:A bunch of jiberish

[John.Banister]

The artists will get their income from patronage agreements. Most of the funds paid through such agreements will come from the content distribution networks who provide entertainment to the 93% of the population who live on Federal Basic Income. However, a few will derive patronage from catering to the 7% of the population who are employed at greater than minimum wage.

Re:A bunch of jiberish

[Anonymous Coward]

Most music these days is without DRM, and we still have music being produced. So your prediction bears no relation to reality.
If these stupid media companies would have figure out that embracing the internet is the key to making money rather than trying to slow adoption maybe they would be richer today:

Last week, the Recording Industry Association of America broke good news for the sector it monitors: Music revenues in 2016 were the highest they’ve been in eight years, and year-over-year gains of 11.4 percent were the largest percentage increase seen since 1998. This growth has been almost entirely driven by the rise of streaming, the technology long discussed as the potential savior of the beleaguered music business and that’s now, finally, maybe making good on its potential.

Re:A bunch of jiberish

[Anonymous Coward]

I crowdsourced (via pledgemusic) Obituary, Flotsam & Jetsam, Mike LePond (of Sanctuary X), Bernie Torme (two of his record sets), Dee Snider, Ghost Ship Octavius, and a few others.

I have not only gotten signed merch, but my name in the credits on the CD, not to mention some amazing music (YMMV, there are other genre artists out there too). I LOVE this method of getting money to the artists I love. I cut out the middle man (RIAA) and I'm happy. For me, it's sticking it square up the ass of the copyright cartels, and I get some awesome music to boot. Music the cartels think isn't selling, yet each of those I listed (and many more) went WELL over their crowdfunding goals. It is the wave of the future, and I for one welcome it.

Re:A bunch of jiberish

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Unauthorised distribution of copyrighted works might be illegal in some of our countries, but often it isn't actionable in practice. This is the big problem faced by many rightsholders, particularly small ones without international contacts.

DRM doesn't necessarily make it impossible to rip content, but it does make casual infringement significantly more difficult, and that is already a big win in many cases. I'm in two minds about the current anti-circumvention provisions in places like the US and EU, but their upside is that it is much more realistic to take enforcement action against a small number of clearly defined targets who are facilitating infringement by many people than against a large number of hard-to-reach targets who are individually infringing on too small a scale to be effectively challenged.

OECD is not EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, the OECD is not EU related and is not affected by the Brexit. Those would be separate negotiations.

$$$ (/. cries about that subject, so here's text)

[mwvdlee]

DRM gone? Not if the powers that be (...lobbying and bribing politicians) have anything to say about it.

Highly improbable

[squiggleslash]

Individual farmers may be furious at John Deere here, but there's a massive difference between that and a lobby big enough to actually get Congress to take action and pass laws. On top of that, there's a massive difference between passing a "right to repair" law aimed at pacifying upset farmers, and a "right to build your own Blu-ray disc player" law.

Add to that the fact that DRM would have to be effectively outlawed to prevent it from actually being used, and, well, how is it going to disappear? Because, sure, it'd be nicer if it became legal to try to break DRM, but there are people all over the world who are breaking DRM anyway, a law change making it legal probably isn't going to affect whether Hollywood et al continue to use it.

I'm skeptical. I hope he's right but I just don't see how he could be.

Re:Highly improbable

[Trailer Trash]

Individual farmers may be furious at John Deere here, but there's a massive difference between that and a lobby big enough to actually get Congress to take action and pass laws.

LOL!!!!!!!

Somebody doesn't know about the agricultural lobbies.

Give you a clue: why do you think we have corn ethanol in all of our gasoline?

Farmers are *very* powerful.

Re:Highly improbable

[Anonymous Coward]

He's talking bullshit.

DRM isn't about control of music and video playback. It's all about control of software and data. If your software doesn't have the right digital signature (ie. it's approved, and hasn't been modified by anyone) then it can't access the data. DRM for music and video is only a small part of this.

Microsoft is moving to completely lockdown Windows so you can only install software from the Windows store - and Intel/AMD/TPMs are giving them the hardware to enforce it.

Buckle up. It's only going to get worse from here on in.

Re:Highly improbable

[squiggleslash]

No, farmers aren't. The agricultural industry, of which John Deere is a part, is. The giant conglomerates who control farming are. But the actual people who get upset when they're told they can't fix their John Deere tractor so it can run on methane have virtually no pull whatsoever.

What you're saying is akin to saying movie directors have huge amounts of political power because the studios do. They don't, and farmers don't either.

Re:Highly improbable

[BronsCon]

Microsoft is moving to completely lockdown Windows so you can only install software from the Windows store

And that will be the start of the last days of their reign over the consumer desktop. Sure, they'll probably still rule business, but the moment someone can't install their old games on their new computer, that user will seek an alternative platform. By then, those old games will run fine under WINE.

That could, literally, lead to the year of the Linux desktop.

Mind you, I'm not saying the year of the Linux desktop is in sight; I'm saying even Microsoft isn't that stupid.

Re:Highly improbable

[Trailer Trash]

No, farmers aren't. The agricultural industry, of which John Deere is a part, is. The giant conglomerates who control farming are. But the actual people who get upset when they're told they can't fix their John Deere tractor so it can run on methane have virtually no pull whatsoever.

What you're saying is akin to saying movie directors have huge amounts of political power because the studios do. They don't, and farmers don't either.

When in a hole, quit digging.

Ever heard of the Iowa caucus? Ever been to Iowa? That's a big part of the power of farmers.

http://people.howstuffworks.co...

Delusional...

[blahplusplus]

... all modern videogames have just been rebranded "mmo" or "online or always online" it's still drm, smite, league of legends, dota 2, all the f2p games where game devs want money with no ownership for gamers. The man is smoking something to believe drm will disappear it has gotten worse, every server locked game is a drm'd game. Hell the game industry has been experimenting with encryption and virtual machines like denuvo.

Windows 10 basically wants to re-engineer the whole application environment so that people don't have access to their own files via encrypted file systems, etc. What of Magicka: wizard wars?

http://www.pcgamer.com/magicka...

The whole game industry is basically destroying games willy nilly and steam has been slowly hiding the fact they encrypt game files and make it difficult for people to modifiy the games they paid for. Shit's out of control and it's because the average person is grade A tech illiterate moron.

Re:Delusional...

[StormReaver]

...all modern videogames have just been rebranded "mmo" or "online or always online" it's still drm....

Stop playing them. Video games are luxuries, pure and simple. They are extremely elastic. Stop playing them, and game companies will stop abusing you.

Windows 10 basically wants to re-engineer the whole application environment so that people don't have access to their own files via encrypted file systems, etc.

Stop using Windows. It is also highly elastic. Locking yourself into Windows is a conscious choice, not a requirement. There isn't a single piece of software you can't replace, recreate, isolate, or live without.

Even those proprietary industrial control programs can either be replaced or isolated. There are always other ways, if you are sufficiently motivated. But the longer you allow yourself to be ass-raped by abusive companies, the more expensive and painful it will be to replace them. The easiest place to start is by running Free Software on your current operating system, then switching to a Free operating system once you're comfortable with the available software.

I made the switch in 1999 (after dabbling for a few years), and have never regretted it.

Re:Delusional...

[blahplusplus]

I'm sorry to tell you but your whole post is stupid...

The free market is a myth and so is freedom of choice, the only way could effect corporations behavior is if you had physical proximity to their offices whenever they try to do something underhanded their is genuine fear of the population next door. Steam would have never got off the ground if the outraged gamers in 2004 were two blocks away from valve. Your whole post reeks of the 'freedom of choice' and 'free market' nonsense which is 100% false. Pre internet software couldn't be held hostage and divided into two pieces, and the reason DRM became a thing is because 1) The Internet allowed software companies to split the software and take control of it and they could do this because the customers are 100's of miles away.

There can be no genuine market relationship when buyer and seller are 100's of miles away from each other. The only way we could have 'freedom of choice' is if we had some say in corporate policy making, aka they weren't pure dictatorships where the owners can impose policy on the rest of society willy nilly.

Re:Delusional...

[angel'o'sphere]

Mo idea why you are ranting over Steam and Valve.

However I like to point out that DRM and the internet are concepts that have nothing to do with each other.

Re:Delusional...

[Sumus Semper Una]

Oof. That's some knee-jerk reactionism if ever I've seen it.

Why did you list a bunch of games whose entire gameplay model revolves around online interactions between players? Frankly, I'd be shocked if those games *weren't* online only. Are games of that genre becoming more popular? Yes, there does seem to be a growing market segment interested in them that they can compete for. But you make it sound like there are no single player games or games with multiplayer that don't require a central server. What about The Witcher 3? DRM-free is available from gog.com and it's a AAA title. You want multiplayer? Why not play Grim Dawn? It's Diablo-like and you can directly connect to a friend. Again, no DRM. There's also Star Ruler 2, Shadow Warrior 2, Ashes of the Singularity, etc.

Yeah, there are lots of games pulling DRM shenanigans. When haven't there been? Some Commodore games in the 80s used to come with DRM that required you to have access to the manual or a "code wheel" to try to verify that you really own the game and didn't just copy the files. It's not like we suddenly arrived in an age where, out of the blue, game publishers realized they have a vested interest in trying to ensure that as many copies of their software as possible were purchased legitimately.

I myself tend to take a more nuanced approach than "DRM = bad!" If it's a model that benefits the parties involved enough (such as Steam, in many cases), I'm ok with accepting DRM as part of the package. I'm ok with knowingly accepting that I don't truly have the final say in who really "owns" the game. I have enough of a say in the things I care about regarding the game. If that changes, I will re-evaluate my purchasing strategy. If a publisher adds DRM that detracts from the experience or adds nothing at all (in my opinion, pretty much anything from Ubisoft over the last 5 years at least would be a good example), I will stay away from their products.

tl;dr - Don't equate a willingness to accept compromise on DRM as laziness or ignorance. Some of us (perhaps even many) are fully aware of what we're doing and are OK with it.

Re:Delusional...

[Rakarra]

The free market is a myth and so is freedom of choice

Freedom of choice exists. What the average Slashdot nerd often fails to acknowledge is that most people do not share their priorities about what is important. They do not consider your problems with Valve to be actual problems that they'd care about -- certainly nothing to organize a boycott around. Instead, most people who love Steam like the way that Steam organizes and updates game libraries because they remember the haphazard shitty ways such things have done in the past. They don't ever use the phrase "holding games hostage" because they'll never run into those situations.

Re:Delusional...

[blahplusplus]

"Why did you list a bunch of games whose entire gameplay model revolves around online interactions between players?"

You're naive, in what world do you live in where Quake was once a game you owned with dedicated servers and level editors providing free content to players and goes to a server locked f2p model where the game you are dumping money into (should you be stupid enough to buy the 'unlocks' to a game you don't own), can be 'shut down' at the behest of besthesda, aka gaming history is being literally destroyed. Any money you paid for the 'unlocks' in the new upcoming quake F2P game is sent down a black whole. The whole thing is a scam that takes advantage of human irrationality.

Maybe you buy the corporate pr speak of 'games as services' anyone with half a brain can see it as doing an end run around peoples rights to control the software they are dumping money into, the whole thing is a scam. AKA "buy unlocks for a game we can take away from you and shut down at any time even though you paid money for it".

I'm using the new quake champions as an example because all prior quakes used a buy once, you own it and control it model. All the great mods that came out of the quake community because of that freedom and having level editors, etc... gets taken away. The whole f2p model is just a way to do an end run around our rights. Anyone who can't see that and see's mmo's and f2p games as a 'good thing' is not bright enough to take part in the conversation. You're rights and fun are being progressively reduced.

Your brain does NOT see reality as it is, see the science, you can be told the facts and NOT reason to the right conclusion.

On reason

Re:Delusional...

[blahplusplus]

The average person is dumb as a bag of hammers, so of course they would love steam, they are technology illiterate, aka not intelligent nor capable enough to even be participating in the market. But don't let the facts get in the way of your uninformed opinion. People are NOT the best judges of whats in their interest, see the science:

On reason

Re:Delusional...

[Sumus Semper Una]

Quake was once a game you owned with dedicated servers and level editors providing free content to players and goes to a server locked f2p model where the game you are dumping money into

Did I not just say that there are companies still trying to pull shenanigans?

You act as though Quake and Quake Champions have anything to do with each other except for the licensed brand name. It's not the same development studio. It's not the same target market. It's not the same business model. It's not even the same gameplay experience. Different things are different.

I loved the original Quake and Quake 2. I found Quake 3 to be underwhelming. I find Quake Champions to be a completely uninteresting attempt to cash in on the same market as games like Overwatch, which I also don't find interesting.

I find the f2p model to be disgusting, but it has nothing to do with ownership. I don't like that it's a predatory business model that takes advantage of a specific subset of people who are easily manipulated into lots of tiny purchases that add up to more than anyone would have normally spent on a more traditional one-time transaction game.

But I don't feel threatened by a lackluster game using a business model that I don't agree with in a world where there are plenty of better games available using business models I do agree with. I don't see why you're so threatened or surprised by large studios imposing heavy-handed DRM when plenty of small studios do not.

I'm using the new quake champions as an example because all prior quakes used a buy once, you own it and control it model. All the great mods that came out of the quake community because of that freedom and having level editors, etc... gets taken away.

If the original Quake had been a f2p game that was not modifiable, it wouldn't have been anywhere close to the classic game we know and love. The model itself limits the game's appeal and audience. I dispute your hypothesis that some companies treating games as a service will lead to all games being offered as services. Case in point:

can be 'shut down' at the behest of besthesda, aka gaming history is being literally destroyed

Wow, where were you in '97 when Ultima Online came out? You realize the players don't OWN those characters, right? If the servers go away, the characters and the world go away. Have you been railing against the system for 20 years now? We've seen other MMOs come that died off, and people's characters were gone for good. And yet, there hasn't been widespread backlash against the business model. People are actually OK with games as a service existing alongside games as a product. And the games as a product model has not died off either. Funnily enough, it seems that you can't always outcompete the games as a product model if you chain yourself to the games as a service model instead.

You're (sic) rights and fun are being progressively reduced.

Well I'm glad you're here to tell me what I find fun and what rights I have that I should be most concerned about.

Your brain does NOT see reality as it is, see the science, you can be told the facts and NOT reason to the right conclusion.

I'm also very glad you're here to point us all to the One True Answer and that there couldn't possibly be any valid concerns on the part of game publishers or development studios that DRM is an attempt to address. It's good to know that empirically, in all cases, DRM == bad.

On reason

Oh irony, how I do love thee.

Re:Delusional...

[blahplusplus]

" It's good to know that empirically, in all cases, DRM"

Dumbass all the mainstay properties have further become drm chained to the other side of the internet.

Diablo 2 >> Diablo 3
Quake 3 >> Quake champions

DRM/server locked games started with mmo's (aka the original scam game). Anyone with a brain who funded mmos paved the way for online drm in classic properties like quake and diablo 3. Jesus to not see it is to be fucking retarded, thats the whole end goal is to trap all big name AAA games on the other side of the net and people like you are dumb enough to fall for it.

Re:Delusional...

[Sumus Semper Una]

Diablo 2 >> Diablo 3

Blizzard >> Activision

Quake 3 >> Quake champions

id >> Bethesda

Hmm, I'm seeing a pattern.

the whole end goal is to trap all big name AAA games on the other side of the net

Then don't play big name AAA games. They're the ones with incentive to DRM- and server-lock as much as possible to recoup costs. In my experience, they're usually not worth the markup anyway. There's a very healthy market of non-AAA games with no DRM. Vote with your wallet. Don't act as if you have no choice in the matter when you very clearly do.

He clearly does not live in the UK.

[SuricouRaven]

If anything, leaving the EU will serve as a pretext to make our copyright laws even stricter, and DRM even more legally-supporter.

Why? Because very few voters care even the tiniest amount about copyright policy. It's just not an issue in elections, at all, not in the slightest, which means the only voice there to influence MPs comes from lobby groups who are happy to point out the economic success of the entertainment industry and hint at favorable media support and a bit of help with the fund-raising come next election season.

Only days ago we passed the Digital Economy Act which, among many other things, increased the criminal penalty for copyright infringement from two years to ten. A provision that went largely unnoticed, as most of the attention of even the technical press has been on ridiculing another section of the act introduces another entirely unworkable attempt to restrict access to pornography on the internet.

Re:He clearly does not live in the UK.

[mccalli]

This is the exact opposite of what has happened - in fact the EU already prevented the UK from liberalising such rules, as it wanted a tax on blank media or similar as per other EU countries. Guardian link on the same subject if you prefer.

The UK was ahead in recognising format shifting, but was slapped back by the copyright lobby demanding payment for format shifting and working that angle via the EU.

With Rights Come Responsibilities

[ytene]

Whilst the Digital Industries (currently predominantly music, film, television and software) pile on ever more restrictive rights, both they and the law seem to be overlooking the need for the reciprocal terms in this arrangement.

If a company (say a game studio, for example) wants to enforce an always-on internet connection as part of their DRM control over their software, then at the same time it is only fair that the same studio commit to hosting the on-line services required to play that game for a minimum period, even after sales of the game stop. Either that or the studio must issue a "final update" patch to allow players to continue to play the game in solo mode.

Our society is well aware what happened to the ill-fated Zune music player, developed by Microsoft as an iPod competitor - but which failed to gain the market share it needed to survive and so was cancelled. Shortly after that, when Zune players were unable to connect to the Mothership, their integrated DRM simply bricked the devices. Owners of Zune players lost not just their investment in the devices themselves, but all the music they had purchased with it, too.

There are other complexities. We've seen news stories of people who have left [sometimes huge] iTunes music collections to their children as part of their estate, only to have Apple attempt to tell those children that they could not inherit the assets purchased by their deceased parent because the children were not party to the original agreement and therefore had no legal right to access the content... it is only a matter of time before 8K TVs and media players are released - I am waiting for the announcement that the media players will all be internet-only devices.

I share the anger and frustration of other slashdotters with respect to this one-sided and corrupt state of affairs, but fear that for as long as the majority of people continue to purchase DRM-protected content, those of us who understand how are rights and freedoms are being eroded will remain out of luck. The vast corporations we are dealing with care about one thing and one thing only: profit. The only thing that will persuade them to change their minds and step back from DRM will be a direct challenge to that profit.

Nothing else will make a difference.

Re:With Rights Come Responsibilities

[Anonymous Coward]

when Zune players were unable to connect to the Mothership, their integrated DRM simply bricked the devices.

Though I agree with your point, this is simply untrue. I speak as an individual who owned a zune HD and used microsofts streaming music service until about a year ago. It continued to operate fine with any music that you actually owned and was not retrieved through the streaming service. And even the music through the streaming service was accessible for about 5 years after they discontinued the zune. To my knowledge, it may actually still be accessible since the zune music pass switched to the windows 10 music store when they ended support for the zune music store shortly after windows 10 launched, but I discontinued my subscription when they eliminated the ability to download 10 songs as non-drmed mp3s a month.

Re:With Rights Come Responsibilities

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

If a company (say a game studio, for example) wants to enforce an always-on internet connection as part of their DRM control over their software, then at the same time it is only fair that the same studio commit to hosting the on-line services required to play that game for a minimum period, even after sales of the game stop. Either that or the studio must issue a "final update" patch to allow players to continue to play the game in solo mode.

I wonder whether transparency would suffice, rather than requiring changes in the underlying model.

Obviously plenty of people are willing to rent a movie or watch one-off pay-per-view events, even though they are restricted compared to buying a permanent copy. I don't really have a problem with that if it's clear what the deal is and they're paying what they consider a fair price for what they get.

However, I think it does have to be clear what the deal is. IMHO, perhaps the biggest problem with some modern games and other online services is that there is no obligation on the supplier to maintain facilities essential to the service working at all and yet they don't disclose this when taking customers' money. There's an element of deception involved, and I suspect that's why a lot of customers really get upset when things get switched off.

If "sales" that actually rely on online functionality had to be clearly and prominently marked as such, with the guarantees (or lack of them) about the availability of that functionality also clearly marked and robust measures to prevent just setting up a different company to run each function and folding it at the end, I suspect it would soon become clear that there were markets for both short-term and more permanent systems, and perhaps for selling a final update to unlock ongoing use by the user community if and when some online component is discontinued by the original functionality.

This could so easily be a win-win situation for everyone, in the same way that some people like to have box sets of their favourite TV shows to keep but others are happy paying a relatively low price each month for Netflix's time-limited but all-you-can-watch model. But you can only do that if everyone knows the deal and does get what they signed up for.

Sad but True

[ytene]

I just hope that if the human race survives another couple of thousand years - and if we're able to move past the current control structures in our society - that dictionaries may well have entries such as:-

Democracy - n. A form of government popular up until the mid-21st century, in which groups of populations known as nations were governed by a tiny minority of representatives. Although the selection of the minority was originally intended to be fair, open, transparent and above-board, the mechanisms of democracy proved to be ideal for corruption, the formation of monopolies, indentured servitude and dictatorships - the very things that the democracies were formed to defeat. Eventually, democracy fell out of favour after a steady succession of corruption scandals showed how large multi-national corporations were colluding with governments to keep populations in poverty and indentured. Overthrown by the AI-led coups of 2066 through 2068 and the subsequent introduction of Egalitocracy, in which, by law, every government decision is undertaken transparently and through the use of one-citizen-one-vote digital voting systems.

How laws are passed.

[geekmux]

"... they lobbied for and bought these laws..."

While this is the most accurate statement I've seen in a long time regarding how laws are passed, there's no need to be redundant about it.

Just say they bought the laws, because that's exactly what the fuck lobbying is.

Doctorow will be gone too

[aglider]

Any prediction farther than a few years makes no sense.

No

[kbg]

No they will not ever. This is just a fact.

media players will all be internet-only???

[Joe_Dragon]

Not with the shit us internet much less 8k. Now we may see PAY OTA tv come back with atsc 3.0

Of course they oppose extending the DCMA

[Registered Coward v2]

when it will impact groups that have lobbies as powerful as theirs. If the farm lobby is successful, there may be collateral damage to the entertainment industry. Changes in the law may not be limited to right to repair or such changes may be broadly interpreted by courts to allow things the entertainment industry fears; such as circumvention technology that gives users access to DRM protected materials. Since what is at issue is software it's not hard to imagine a scenario where changes to the DCMA have unknown, potentially far reaching implications and that is what the industry fears. Now if only some gun manufacturer introduced software that required you to use a factory technician to clean your gun...

Re:Of course they oppose extending the DCMA

[fnj]

It's spelled DMCA, sparky.

Re:Of course they oppose extending the DCMA

[Registered Coward v2]

It's spelled DMCA, sparky.

Yup. that was a tpyo...

More than five years out

[bill_mcgonigle]

Yes, this just looks like wishful thinking.

By standard metrics, since it's more than five years out, it's wishful thinking by default.

Elon Musk might get a pass on that but only because his people have a detailed plan. Everybody needs to show a detailed plan for a five-year prediction, to be believed.

Re:SpaceX sticks another landing!

[jfdavis668]

Blur - Song 2

A clarification from Cory Doctorow

[mouthbeef]

Hey folks! Just to clarify: I said that the UK would renegotiate its relationship to the EUCD (European Union Copyright Directive) and Iain (reasonably enough, given the noisy room) heard OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). Just a minor clarification, but I'd appreciate an upvote so confused people see it.

Re:A clarification from Cory Doctorow

[mdm-adph]

Sorry, Mr. Doctorow.

Signed,

The Slashdot Click-Bait Headline Team

Users are not lazy for not being security experts

[sjbe]

Increased security my ass. People don't give a shit about security. Ordinary users are fucking lazy, and are "willingly gravitating" towards anything that can do everything for them without lifting a finger.

Not true at all. They care about security to a reasonable degree. The problem is that A) security isn't their only or most pressing concern and B) most of them are not security experts nor should they be expected to be. Too many programmers write system that fail to assume that the computer will be utilized by someone who does not understand security and cannot reasonably be expected to understand it even if they wanted to.

My parents are delightful people who are smart and capable and they certainly aren't lazy. But expecting them to be well versed in the nuances of computer security is both naive and unrealistic. It has nothing to do with laziness but simply where their competencies lie and what time they have available. You would do a shit job at what they do for a living most likely. That doesn't mean you are lazy or stupid but merely that you have focused your energies elsewhere.

Furthermore there is NOTHING wrong with the expectation that the software you use be designed to be secure and to make your life simpler. If your software doesn't do that for users it will eventually be replaced by software that does and rightfully so.

Voice activated assistants and press-to-order buttons hanging on the wall are two prime examples of just how lazy people have become. Getting online to search and order a product manually is considered hard labor for the Siri generation.

That's akin to arguing that people are lazy for not wanting to drive to the store to do their shopping. Spending your time efficiently isn't sloth - it's just smart. Spending more time than absolutely required to do a task is idiotic and wasteful. Time is the most precious resource any of us have and wasting it bothering with navigating unnecessary websites out of some misplaced idea of what laziness is is foolish. Maybe you enjoy spending your time jumping through extra hurdles to order something. Personally I have better things to do with my time. I'd rather spend even that modest amount of time doing something that adds value to my life.

I predict...

[fyngyrz]

The UK enjoys a really interesting market position if it wants to be the only nation in the region that makes, exports, and supports DRM-breaking tools

I predict that if the UK were to do this, then all future villains in entertainment media produced outside the UK would have strong British accents. All of them.

Also, the UK is whole-heartedly chasing the power-mad 1%-er's dream of citizen repression just as hard as we are here in the US. So I don't think there's any chance at all that they would do this.

DRM's not going away. DRM is the sugar in the authoritarian's tea.

Maybe. Maybe not.

[fyngyrz]

Because you can sell copies of music tracks at sub-dollar impulse purchase prices and still make a profit anyway. Sadly, that is not true for many other kinds of creative works.

Well, it might be, but the only way to find out is to try it. And all I see are ridiculously steep prices. It doesn't make me take a black hat approach – IMHO, piracy is ethically bankrupt – but I won't pay those prices. So I don't see a lot of new movies until they're quite old, resulting in them landing in the group that a reasonably priced streaming service will include.

$10 / month for lots of not-all-that-new content is okay with me. $10 / movie is not. But $1 to stream a new movie once? Sure, I think I'd bite that biscuit quite regularly. As it stands, they get nothing from me. That's a loss no matter how you try to account for it.

Re: Maybe. Maybe not.

[fyngyrz]

Yep. And as long as people keep buying $10 movies, they'll keep doing that.

And I'll keep not giving them my money.

See how that works? :)

Re:Maybe. Maybe not.

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Well, it might be, but the only way to find out is to try it.

But some people have tried experiments in this area, right down to "pay whatever you want, including nothing". They typically seem to raise very little money, with the more successful cases mostly being work by creators who had already become established and developed a large fan base built with a more traditional funding model. I'm not saying it's impossible that there are exceptions, but the trend looks pretty clear and it would be a brave studio that spent 8-9 figures on producing some new content and then offered it for sale at less than 10% of the normal price in the hope of getting more than 10x as many paying customers.

It doesn't make me take a black hat approach – IMHO, piracy is ethically bankrupt – but I won't pay those prices. So I don't see a lot of new movies until they're quite old, resulting in them landing in the group that a reasonably priced streaming service will include.

And that's fine, and it's why you can watch the movies legitimately for a significantly lower price after the initial rush. Immediacy has a value when it comes to new content, and pricing models often reflect that.

Re: Maybe. Maybe not.

[TheRaven64]

There was a study from the Harvard Business School almost 10 years ago now that looked at the optimum price point for music. They found that it was around 5 cents per track. At that price, people will buy an entire album without thinking and the sales will go up by more than enough to cover the reduction in per-sale profit. Something similar is probably true for most forms of digital entertainment. The distribution cost is small and impulse purchases can dwarf considered purchases if you get the price right. From personal experience, I've bought a number of games from GOG.com on sale that I've never played for about £1. I'll probably get around to them at some point, but £1 is cheap enough that 'that looks fun, I might find time to play it at some point' is enough of a motivation to make the purchase, whereas at £20 it has to be 'I want to spend hours playing that right now'.

DRM is a blunt instrument used badly

[sjbe]

DRM are a necessary evil if you want a rental market.

The concept of "renting" an intangible product with near-as-makes-no-difference zero marginal cost to reproduce is more than a little absurd. If you need DRM to protect your product then your product is overpriced and you will induce piracy. A from Princess Leia seems to fit here rather well.

With the ability to easily copy and distribute digital media, it is hard to tell if extra copies are being made unlawfully.

Doesn't necessarily matter if they make extra copies. It matters if they DISTRIBUTE extra copies. It's not hard to determine if someone has a the legal right to distribute a given bit of copyrighted material. They have an absolute right to so-called fair use copying. DRM is a problem in large part because it attacks the wrong issue. It is an effort to inappropriately control distribution via controlling copying but copying is not the same thing as distribution. DRM is a blunt instrument that restricts all copying whether or not it is legal or desirable.

So, I know DRM is evil and we do not want that. What are the alternatives that can keep traditional shops open? I am all ears.

Implicit in your question is that we should care about keeping "traditional shops" open. I'm not convinced that is an important consideration.

Probably won't happen.

[sootman]

We may have a couple good points against DRM, but there have been good points against LOTS of things that are still in place. As long as the people with money and power want DRM and think* it helps, we'll have DRM.

* Note: it doesn't have to ACTUALLY help. All that matters is what the people on top think.

factory technician to clean your gun... the army

[Joe_Dragon]

factory technician to clean your gun... the army will stop that / not want a gun that needs battery's to work

What iPad 1 alternative in 2010?

[tepples]

There is a non-walled garden option and they opted not to buy it.

Between the April 2010 release of the iPad and the January 2011 introduction of the Motorola Xoom, the first Android tablet with Android Market, what was the viable non-walled-garden alternative to the iPad? People who entered the tablet market in that nine-month period got locked into a walled garden.

Re:What iPad 1 alternative in 2010?

[spire3661]

WebOS.....

And this story shares the same front page...

[Lead Butthead]

There's no good way to kill a bad idea.

Music is tied to other products

[tepples]

Here's a crazy idea: if you don't like a product or the terms it is offered under, don't buy or otherwise use it.

That's difficult when a product is tied to another product that is a necessity. A portion of the price of food I buy at a grocery store goes toward the performance royalty for the non-free background music that the store plays.

One man's laziness

[rsilvergun]

is another's time management. If you view technology as interesting and exciting then spending hours managing security settings and learning which repositories are safe (and occasionally cleaning up when one goes rouge after it gets bought out by a spammer) isn't a big deal.

If, OTOH, your interests are in say, Law, then you probably spend your days pouring over legal briefs instead of computer code. Speaking of Law, I never hear lawyers say "The problem with my clients is they're _lazy_". And I seldom hear Doctors saying that either. Sure, my doc tells me to eat better and exercise more, but he also recognizes that that's hard to do and takes a significant commitment. It's only computer techs that have this utter disdain for everyone who's not a computer tech.

Take with grain of salt...

[Robotech_Master]

Cory Doctorow wears the habitual rose-colored glasses of the impassioned activist, so I tend to take what he says with more than a few grains of salt. Nonetheless, it's nice to hear a little optimism even if it may be largely unfounded. We'll just have to wait and see what comes of it.