Is Cory Doctorow talking about DRM and copyright in principle, or as technically dangerous to implementat


I find this to be utterly false. Even if I used my computer for nothing else but watching videos, if DRM started to get annoying I would simply switch to watch other videos (e.g. from YouTube to Vimeo or whatever). And I could also stop to watch videos and use my computer for something else. That claim is complete garbage!

But okay, let’s say that’s the case. DRM is eeeevil. Then I switch to some other topic here where copyrights are discussed and there people claim that if digital content authors want to protect their content, they simply shouldn’t distribute it widely so that people get a chance to copy it. This in effect means private showings for the rich. But no, that’s not “inclusive”, say some. They have the right (I don’t know what kind of right, but whatever) to go to the artist’s home and make a copy.

A real twilight zone!

By the way, the linked article is about fascism in local governments and is not related to DRM. Last time I checked noone had to install any DRM software (or use a video player that uses DRM software that may be installed).

I assume Cory as a sheriff would fine all those who want to use DRM on their computer so that they don’t have to travel to LA for a private showing of some new movie?

What other ways of protection there are, except control? Tipjars?

Positive arguments against software that "protects" through control, or includes DRM

I’m not sure what you can be not believing. Cory Doctorow explains it very clearly - did you watch the DrupalCon keynote? I’d be very interested to see you point to his errors. I don’t see you doing that here.


We had a similar discussion on the topic of us being controlled (where you asked me if I actually watched the video and when I answered I had the book that was on of sources of inspiration for the video) - in this case I am familiar with Cory’s claims (I’m aware of them since 2012) that in the future “application specific” devices would “take our freedom”.
And like then, just to give the idea the benefit of the doubt, I now spend 49 mins to see his speech and I haven’t really seen anything that’s concerning.

  1. Cory: "We need to convince our lawmakers. We need to take it to the EU, we need to take it to the UN…"
    Why? That is completely delusional!
    He’s complaining about all those things (which I earlier said aren’t a copyright problem, but a fascism problem) that these very institutions drafted, passed and are enforcing.
    The simple and effective way to deal with them is to simply ignore them.

  2. Cory (28m30s): "The best way to change (laws) … is to outsource that to EFF… " (and other similar organizations)
    I don’t subscribe to that for the simple reason that I know what the law is. Look it up, lex naturalis: rules of
    I do not need a parliament or EFF or the UN to tell me what is good and what are my rights.
    So I see no need whatsoever to “outsource” to any of organizations he mentioned, primarily because I already know what the law is, and secondarily because I don’t care about what the awful legal system says is legal.
    (Obviously at times, in order to avoid paying fines, I choose to live by their made up rules, and at other times I simply have no choice).

  3. At 16m15s mark he mentioned that we have 3D printers but don’t know how to print guns, although Cody Wilson printed one in 2013.

  4. Cory idea of liquid democracy (34m40s) is a terrible idea. I explained why democracy (in any of its forms) invariably leads to totalitarianism (Does democracy lead to a “predatory majority”?) and this is no better. Today - within several weeks - it is possible to create anonymous market for votes in liquid democracy and allow voters to withdraw their delegation from candidates in order to anonymously sell their vote to the highest bidder (which, of course, is exactly the same how democracy works today).
    Cory’s liquid democracy would be a waste of time and resources and wouldn’t do anything to improve the current sad state of affairs.
    (I am curious how would liquid democracy votes be audited without forcing everyone to get a government-issued ID, but I actually don’t care.)

  5. DRM: we discussed the topic of copyright last week here and my conclusion is that I am not convinced that people should be able to freely copy digital property of others. In short, (1) I can choose not to watch DRM protected content, (2) Therefore, personally I am not at all concerned about DRM. (3) If you are “against DRM”, tell me (a) do you agree that people should be able to freely copy digital property of others, and (b) if you disagree, how would you as an author protect your property?

Sadly, Cory thinks the problem is the technology and private enterprises and not the government who makes it possible to introduce, enforce, and monitor freedom-restricting technologies. After so many years of complaining about these things he still doesn’t get it.


Thanks for watching the video, but you have gone completely off the point in question. I refer to your post with you say “I find this to be utterly false”.

If you find it false, please tell me why given what Cory Doctorow says in the video.

You are answering as if you don’t understand the point I made (and the key reason for Cory Doctorow saying we should do X, Y and Z). I had assumed you understood that but now it seems not.


Okay, so we’re still following the same template from that previous discussion after which you told me I misunderstood everything. :smiley:

Cory claims (your post at the top of this topic):

You don’t seem to understand the concept of property.
Property is something that belongs to you. “Holywood” cannot take your computer and make it vulnerable, because that would be theft/misappropriation/hijacking/unlawful use of your property.
Now, you either can claim they (one of those organizations) actually stole your computer, or accept that there is no theft (in which case Cory is making random and unsubstantiated claims).

If you believe your computer was unlawfully used by those guys, there’s nothing to talk to lawmakers about. Sue the perpetrators (that Cory named) and you’ll be done.
If you believe your computer was unlawfully used by those guys, but the current laws do not provide protection against that, ask yourself who on earth passed those laws and then ask yourself why would you want to talk to those people to “persuade” them to change them.
If you believe that there was no theft, agree with me that Cory’s claims are false.

As I told you, from the capitalist position, those claims are laughable.
I alone chose what kind of computer I buy and what I install on my computer. If I don’t like the product, I won’t buy it. Once I buy it, no one can install anything on it that I haven’t allowed. If they do, I can sue them and if that doesn’t work I can protect myself using other ways.
I have nothing to say to “lawmakers” and - as a matter of basic sanity - I refuse to install any government crap as well.

If anything this should be a post with jokes about people who installed that government “protection software”.

If you have time let us know your views on DRM for digital assets and how should authors protect themselves (I can ask the fourth time if you’d like!)


I still think you’ve misunderstood.

The point is that by including DRM in, for example in HTML5 and therefore every major web browser one has included a backdoor.

That DRM can/is used completely legally, to limit what your computer can do. But this is not the issue that Cory and I are so concerned about.

The issue is that it is technically impossible to secure that special mechanism, so it creates a backdoor, which makes any device with DRM vulnerable.

If someone obtains the keys to that backdoor, they own (in the hacking sense) your computer.

This topic is nothing to do with theft etc. its about creating massive cyber vulnerabilities because there is no secure technical solution that can implement the enforcement.