Ask Slashdot: What Would Happen If Everything On the Internet Was DRM Protected?
dryriver writes: The whole Digital Rights Management (DRM) train started with music and films, spread horribly to computer and console games (Steam, Origin), turned a lot of computer software you could once buy-and-use into DRM-locked Software As A Service or Cloud Computing products (Adobe, Autodesk, MS Office 365 for example) that are impossible to use without an active Internet connection and account registration on a cloud service somewhere. Recently the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) appears to have paved the way for DRM to find its way into the world of Internet content in various forms as well. Here's the question: What would happen to the Internet as we know it if just about everything on a website -- text, images, audio, video, scripts, games, PDF documents, downloadable files and data, you name it -- had DRM protection and DRM usage-limitations hooked into it by default?
Imagine trying to save a JPEG image you see on a website to your harddisk, and not only does every single one of your web browsers refuse the request, but your OS's screen-capture function won't let you take a snapshot of that JPEG image either. Imagine trying to copy-and-paste some text from a news article somewhere into a Slashdot submission box, and having browser DRM tell you 'Sorry! The author, copyright holder or publisher of this text does not allow it to be quoted or re-published anywhere other than where it was originally published!'. And then there is the (micro-)payments aspect of DRM. What if the DRM-fest that the future Internet may become 5 to 10 years from now requires you to make payments to a copyright holder for quoting, excerpting or re-publishing anything of theirs on your own webpage? Lets say for example that you found some cool behind-the-scenes-video of how Spiderman 8 was filmed, and you want to put that on your Internet blog. Except that this video is DRM'd, and requires you to pay 0.1 Cent each time someone watches the video on your blog. Or you want to use a short excerpt from a new scifi book on your blog, and the same thing happens -- you need to pay to re-publish even 4 paragraphs of the book. What then?
Imagine trying to save a JPEG image you see on a website to your harddisk, and not only does every single one of your web browsers refuse the request, but your OS's screen-capture function won't let you take a snapshot of that JPEG image either. Imagine trying to copy-and-paste some text from a news article somewhere into a Slashdot submission box, and having browser DRM tell you 'Sorry! The author, copyright holder or publisher of this text does not allow it to be quoted or re-published anywhere other than where it was originally published!'. And then there is the (micro-)payments aspect of DRM. What if the DRM-fest that the future Internet may become 5 to 10 years from now requires you to make payments to a copyright holder for quoting, excerpting or re-publishing anything of theirs on your own webpage? Lets say for example that you found some cool behind-the-scenes-video of how Spiderman 8 was filmed, and you want to put that on your Internet blog. Except that this video is DRM'd, and requires you to pay 0.1 Cent each time someone watches the video on your blog. Or you want to use a short excerpt from a new scifi book on your blog, and the same thing happens -- you need to pay to re-publish even 4 paragraphs of the book. What then?
There's a fine balance between not enough DRM, where copyright holders can't live off their work, and too much DRM that's so expensive and so annoying that people massively turn to piracy and ruin the copyright holders.
The right balance is where the return for copyright holders is maximized. Even greedy bastards like the MPAA/RIAA know it and turn a blind eye to massive copyright infringements that they would much rather didn't happen.
So the OP's point is moot: the internet will never be completely DRM-locked, because it would plain kill DRM in very short order.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
+1
As far as answering your daughter's question: Well honey, eventually the monster would poop it out and it would look exactly like the world we live in now.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
Yeah, I'm going there... what if every road required you to display your drivers license in the windshield to be scanned every time you go anywhere?
Then we would rename "driver's license" with the term "license plate," since that's what a license plate is.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
This is an underrated argument. If everything was effectively DRM'd, we would have to find solutions that weren't painful for legitimate customers or for society as a whole. There would have to be some mechanism where fair use could actually, well, be used. There would have to be some mechanism to demonstrate who a legitimate rightsholder was to qualify for the DRM, so takedown mechanisms that can be abused today wouldn't need to exist in the same way. Copyright durations would have to be sensible and there would have to be a mechanism for ensuring works were properly released when the time came. If businesses adopted subscription models and then started hiking up prices once they'd got data locked in, we would soon have laws mandating data portability to promote fair and legal competition (much as the EU is now introducing with the GDPR, albeit for a slightly different reason).
Most of the problems with DRM aren't really problems with DRM, they're problems with DRM denying customers what they legitimately paid for, DRM denying society its side of the copyright bargain, or badly implemented DRM having negative side-effects that are nothing to do with IP rights, such as creating security vulnerabilities or privacy problems.
Of course, in practice such a system would be unworkable for a variety of reasons, but it's an interesting thought experiment along the lines of "What if copyright law were actually enforced robustly?"
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Nope, nobody wins because the internet would be effectively unusable. We'd all have to go back to the library for our information. Nobody would have enough money to pay the bastards whatever they wanted for the DRM unlock, so... the internet would be unusable.