News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not cop... by javajosh on Monday April 27, 2020 @07:30PM (#23001452)
You make two arguments here, one about degree and the other about kind. As for kind, as others have pointed out, the intent of IP law is to create artificial scarcity. The marginal cost of information is 0, so you have to put turnstiles somewhere. Society has kind of blundered and stumbled into the mishmash of enforcement measures we have today, but the intent is to reward content creators.

If you accept this is a good thing, then the degree problem becomes one of proportionality. I agree that life + 70 years is exorbitant, but that particular formula is relatively easy to change legally. Practically, you have to fight powerful interests (Disney) to change it, but it can (and IMHO should) be done.

One interesting notion is to fully privatize the problem of artificial scarcity. This might look something like leasing a Disney device (for example) to watch Disney content. This seems like something of a nightmare, until you realize that you don't really need to watch movies.

Re:Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not cop... by dredmorbius on Monday April 27, 2020 @08:03PM (#23001748)
The problems with the DRM route are ... well known. See the EFF (https://www.eff.org/issues/drm) and FSF (https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/drm.html) especially.

Among other matters:

- Your devices are no longer fully under your control, and don't answer to you.

- Even where DRM isn't itself directly. malware (Sony: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...), it inevitably creates backdoors for APTs.

- The legal proscriptions on analysing and assessing ADRM mechanisms create both minefields for researchers and multiply the existing security threat risk.

But most critically, and pretty much fully torpedoing your voluntarism argument, device vendors may be contractually or legally prohibited from producing non-DRM-afflicted devices in their own relationships with DRM gatekeepers, meaning that there are no (or very crippled or expensive) DRM-free alternatives.

Witness ongoing efforts to plug the "anologue hole" (https://www.eff.org/issues/analog-hole) in various devices and software.

FWIW, my complete crap Chrome browser on my complete crap Samsung Android device refuses to allow me to screenshot this HN thread claiming it is a "DRM protected page".

I'd love to replace the device with something vaguely comparable. Between licensing restrictions, monopoly coercion, and market dynamics, there is literally nothing available.

Or more briefly: Your assertion is absolutely unsupported by empirical experience.

Re:Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not cop... by pwg on Monday April 27, 2020 @09:09PM (#23002208)
> FWIW, my complete crap Chrome browser on my complete crap Samsung Android device refuses to allow me to screenshot this HN thread claiming it is a "DRM protected page".

Just tested with Firefox on Android (Moto E4 phone). Firefox did not block taking a screenshot of this thread. Perhaps you may wish to test Firefox yourself to see if it better obey's you than Chrome does.

Re:Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not cop... by dredmorbius on Monday April 27, 2020 @10:45PM (#23002788)
The problem simply should not exist.
Re:Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not cop... by pwg on Monday April 27, 2020 @11:37PM (#23003082)
Agreed.

But sadly it does, and while it does the options available are try something else or do without. In this case you can try Firefox for Android on your phone to see if it behaves better than Chrome.

Re:Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not cop... by dredmorbius on Tuesday April 28, 2020 @03:22AM (#23004392)
The point really isn't to solve my personal inconvenience of a problem that should not exist.

It's to point out the problem that shouldn't exist, its root cause, and only one very minor, mundane, and utterly ridiculous consequence. Of a problem that should not exist.

At all.

For any reason.

But thank you regardless, your heart at least is in the right place.

Re:Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not cop... by jasonlotito on Tuesday April 28, 2020 @07:58AM (#23006142)
So going back to who you were originally replying to that spawned this little thread and trying to tie this all together because I’m lost with what you are trying to say.

What is this problem that shouldn’t exist, this root cause? And in which scenario does it go away: with the status quo laws or with their removal? And why would the scenario remove that root cause problem?

Re:Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not cop... by dredmorbius on Wednesday April 29, 2020 @12:56AM (#23015527)
Re:Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not cop... by gentleman11 on Monday April 27, 2020 @09:41PM (#23002404)
Firefox on iOS also works
Re:Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not cop... by javajosh on Monday April 27, 2020 @09:05PM (#23002184)
I wasn't aware I was making any kind of assertion, honestly. But I think a world in which proprietary content must be totally vertically integrated with a non-owned proprietary device is at least an honest way to enforce artificial scarcity. I think the "shape" of this system represents a kind of platonic ideal that combines artificial scarcity in a free market system that values property rights. I find the idea abhorrent myself, and would not intentionally lease such a device, but I think it helps clarify the discussion.
Re:Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not cop... by AnthonyMouse on Monday April 27, 2020 @10:32PM (#23002722)
> But I think a world in which proprietary content must be totally vertically integrated with a non-owned proprietary device is at least an honest way to enforce artificial scarcity.

In addition to all of the other objections, the biggest failure here is of the technical measures to actually prevent copying. Even when it's prohibited by law and the pirates are a bunch of hobbyists, DRM gets broken time and again. You can imagine what would happen if copyright didn't exist and then breaking the DRM allowed for-profit businesses to legally distribute any of the content they extracted.

Copyright without DRM >>> DRM without copyright.

Though it should definitely be one or the other and not both. If copyright exists then DRM is not only useless, its existence is pure harm because all it adds to copyright is restricting things the copyright doesn't give the copyright holder a right to restrict, like free speech and fair use.

Re:Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not cop... by javajosh on Tuesday April 28, 2020 @11:25AM (#23007881)
I speculate that it's theoretically possible to build virtually unbreakable DRM into a physical device, especially if the device is designed to resist (or at least detect) disassembly. (Analog re-recording notwithstanding).

I like your point about DRM vs copyright. I guess I've always seen DRM as the "ounce of prevention" that replaces the "pound of cure" that copyright enforcement entails - although distribution platforms like YouTube increasingly reduce that pound to closer to an ounce (at the cost of more abuse). I think your point would be valid if enforcement of copyright was simpler and cheaper; perhaps you've read stories about photographers whose work has been used by large companies, without compensation, usually because the asset was included in projects done by 3rd party contractors. Its very expensive for an individual to enforce their rights. But yes, if the justice system itself were fixed to be fast, cheap, and fair, then I would agree that copyright alone would be the preferable solution.

Re:Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not cop... by smichel17 on Monday April 27, 2020 @11:09PM (#23002909)
I do this somewhat by choice. I have a mildly damaged old phone that I use as my "proprietary app device" with Spotify, Discord, etc. It allows me to sandbox their access to my life, to some extent.
Re:Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not cop... by Thorrez on Tuesday April 28, 2020 @02:34AM (#23004101)
> - The legal proscriptions on analysing and assessing ADRM mechanisms create both minefields for researchers and multiply the existing security threat risk.

Well I assume if we repeal all copyright then the laws against breaking DRM will be repealed too.

Re:Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not cop... by raverbashing on Tuesday April 28, 2020 @02:14AM (#23003973)
Screenshot worked just fine here, I don't know what might have been causing your problem (Android Chrome)
Re:Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not cop... by incompatible on Tuesday April 28, 2020 @05:55AM (#23005384)
I'm not sure why you think that scarcity is such a good thing that it needs to be created artificially.
Re:Supreme Court rules Georgia state law annotations not cop... by notSupplied on Monday April 27, 2020 @09:09PM (#23002211)
Why would we need to incentivize creating more legislative annotations?