Just What No One Needs Or Wants: Web Images With DRM And An Expiration Date
from the good-luck dept
The BBC is reporting on a new project to create web images that "expire" after a certain period of time. The thinking is that people who put photos up on social networking profiles may be embarrassed by them later, so, this way, the photo can only stay up for a set period of time and then no longer be viewable. Of course, to make all of this work requires DRM. And, to make the DRM work means that anyone who wants to see such photos has to actually install a browser plug-in that they're unlikely to want to install. And, if they do install the plug-in, they can probably still just take a screenshot of the image anyway -- especially when you realize that someone is so embarrassed by the image that they want it to automatically delete at some point after forcing you to install annoying DRM you don't want.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: drm, expiration date, images
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And, uh, if no one else does? I will.
The part that drives me the most is that the creators actually expect people to pay for this. $2 a month for a useless feature. Worse yet, a useless feature that will encourage more people to take their own copies of things you don't want seen, thus making the end situation worse.
And worse yet, a useless feature that most people will only think to start using AFTER they've already been caught with their pants down at least once. That is, literally and metaphorically with their pants down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YOUR GOING AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL IDEA OF THE INTERNET; FREEDOM OF INFORMATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you grow mighty suspicious of statements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only way
So I think these guys are doomed. It's just a matter of waiting for them to run out of money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're obviously pirates
/sarcasm (or is it…) :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple Solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM servers
This type of lock-out has occurred many times in other DRM schemes, even when they are backed by companies with very deep pockets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ask me about the usefulness of my 8-track collection!
With the exception of CDs, each technology had a lifespan of about five years, and consumers were forced to upgrade their media collection every time a new technology came out.
On the same note, DRM companies usually have a lifespan of about 3-5 years too.
So the idea that DRM creates new art seems quite false. What it does is inconveniences the customer with new expenditures, and upgrades to their media library. It makes you wonder if this is the true direction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A deeply stupid solution to a misunderstood problem...
Now suppose - again just for argument's sake - that they can convince their friends to *also* cough up the $2/month so that they can see the pictures.
Now - how exactly does this software prevent *other people* from posting embarrassing pictures of them on Facebook?
For example - suppose I have a picture of Mike passed out and being teabagged by his father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate, and I post it to Facebook. How will this software prevent me from doing that? Assuming I use this software, how does it allow Mike to specify when it expires?
Half of the "Facebook problem" isn't that you have people posting regrettable pictures of themselves - it's that you have *other people* posting regrettable pictures of you.
Not only is this a bad solution from an adoption perspective, it doesn't even address the problem correctly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My solution to the pay wall or walled garden is very simple. They don't want me there with payment, I don't want to be there with payment. So anytime I see an article that leads there I close the tab to the browser and move on. It's called choice. I don't have to agree to anything, I don't have to download anything on my computer. I simply refuse.
The idea that someone is going to require me to download a drm app will work the same way. I refuse. The image is not as important to me as my freedom of choice.
This is often why when I do go to internet newspaper sites, I don't allow the images. Instead what I see under the images that most won't see, is all the dataminers exposed because the image no longer covers them for me. You wanna look at the pretty pictures while they datamine you, be my guest.
What I am saying here is that I value my privacy more than viewing an image. Good luck with getting me to willing load a drm app to view an image. Here's a clue, it ain't gonna happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you are so embarrassed by an image you might want to auto-delete it at some point...why would you post the thing in the first place?
Either I've lost a few million brain cells more than usual in the last few days or this is just a totally dumb idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More Ambitious Than You Realize
Yes, it won’t just be special DRM’d software, you’ll also need special displays to see these protected images—the software won’t work without them. These displays will include special “vampire” pixels that you can see but which cannot be photographed. They won’t even show up in a mirror.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More Ambitious Than You Realize
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this will be good
ADD caps and thorttles and how messy your site can look and guess what NO ONES gonna go.
enjoy the morons in control being out of hand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blackmail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is needed to protect the artist and creators
Lack of DRM has almost killed the adult industry, the music, hurt the movie industry, ebook piracy is rampant. The people that don't want DRM are the non-creators and non-producers. The place now value on other peoples work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]