Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by MBCook 3203 days ago
Well that comment went as well as I expected. Can someone give a good argument why someone shouldn’t be able to use DRM to protect their content?
3 comments

It goes against most people's notions of fairness to pay for a product and still have it encumbered with a lot of limitations. I think the case is stronger if we're talking about streams or rentals, but of course DRM is hardly limited to those.
But we’ve always had that. I mean every video tape I ever watched as a child had FBI warnings explaining that there were limits on what you could do with it.

The only difference is that the videotapes can now try and enforce it themselves.

But you also had rights enshrined in law, like resale.
Because it does not allow them to protect their content.

Their content will still be distributed without their consent, because DRM is broken as quickly as it is implemented.

And they will not be the one using DRM to control distribution of their content, the DRM vendor will be.

Next: why shouldn't I use the magic beans the mafia are offering me to protect my content?

That doesn't really answer the question, does it? If someone wants to lock up their bike with an ineffective lock, it might be a bad idea, but they're not outside of their moral rights to do so.
> Next: why shouldn't I use the magic beans the mafia are offering me to protect my content?

You don’t seriously expect people to engage in a discussion like this do you?

As emodendroket pointed out the rest of your comment is the argument against any kind of lock ever. It’s a false dichotomy.

Can you give a good argument, why computer owner shouldn't be able to control what her computer is doing?

Why computer should not serve its owner best interest and instead serve interests of media companies?