Re:A peek into the curious world of HDMI copy protection
by AnthonyMouse on Monday February 18, 2013 @05:36PM
(#5241226)
>DRM is popular not because it makes the possible impossible (not even the least technical people at the studios think this), but because it makes copying more expensive.
Except that it doesn't. The user who downloads pick-your-favorite-DVD-ripper doesn't even have to know that it contains code to remove CSS, they just download it and it works.
At the same time, DRM is costing them money. If I go to the store and buy a shiny plastic disc for $30 and take it home and it doesn't play because my $2000 TV from two years ago doesn't have HDCP version whatever, I am not going to go straight out and buy another $2000 TV. I am just going to spend my money on something other than plastic discs that won't play on my TV until the time comes when I would have replaced it anyway. And two months after that happens, someone breaks the new DRM and they come out with new content that won't play on my new TV.
The net result of DRM is to make piracy more convenient relative to purchasing. As far as I can tell its continued existence has only two causes: The first is the DRM snake oil salesmen bamboozling people into thinking it isn't a net negative, and the second (which I imagine is the real reason) is that it allows major content producers to better control content distribution channels and thereby exclude, tax or penalize smaller competitors. But that doesn't require the DRM to be effective in any way, it only requires the DMCA and lawsuits against anyone who attempts to challenge them in the market for content distribution.
Except that it doesn't. The user who downloads pick-your-favorite-DVD-ripper doesn't even have to know that it contains code to remove CSS, they just download it and it works.
At the same time, DRM is costing them money. If I go to the store and buy a shiny plastic disc for $30 and take it home and it doesn't play because my $2000 TV from two years ago doesn't have HDCP version whatever, I am not going to go straight out and buy another $2000 TV. I am just going to spend my money on something other than plastic discs that won't play on my TV until the time comes when I would have replaced it anyway. And two months after that happens, someone breaks the new DRM and they come out with new content that won't play on my new TV.
The net result of DRM is to make piracy more convenient relative to purchasing. As far as I can tell its continued existence has only two causes: The first is the DRM snake oil salesmen bamboozling people into thinking it isn't a net negative, and the second (which I imagine is the real reason) is that it allows major content producers to better control content distribution channels and thereby exclude, tax or penalize smaller competitors. But that doesn't require the DRM to be effective in any way, it only requires the DMCA and lawsuits against anyone who attempts to challenge them in the market for content distribution.