Bad, bad DRM

Posted Sep 25, 2006 15:45 UTC (Mon) by mingo (subscriber, #31122)
In reply to: Bad, bad DRM by drag
Parent article: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Hasn't TiVO entered into legal aggrements with media companies so you can do Pay per View and stuff like that and those companies require DRM-like stuff to 'protect' their content? I mean, for instance, if I hack the board by replacing the bios and I distribute bios chips for the TiVO and this allowed users to 'unprotect' protected content then I figure this a violation of the DMCA in the united states.

But didnt you have the noble goal to freely modify the OS so that you could learn and be free? Or was the goal of that "hacking/modification" of the Tivo to go against the wishes of the content copyright holders and to "unprotect" their stuff, and to not pay? If it's the latter then i have no sympathy for that. If it's the former, i doubt there would be many grounds for suing you. (sure, you can be sued over just about anything and the DMCA makes it particularly easy - but the content owner could hardly claim that you did actual damage to him.)

Think about it this way: we, Linux copyright holders are content owners of a valuable piece of work. Even though I dont agree with Hollywood's monopoly position and their tactics, i do believe in their freedom of licensing too.

to post comments

Bad, bad DRM

Posted Sep 25, 2006 21:22 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link] (2 responses)

You really think you don't have the right to tinker with your Tivo or any other device that enters your house -- to learn what it does and then modify it to better suit your needs. Even if it is necessary to do things other than what those content owners will let you, for example the nefarious idea of skipping commercials.

You probably don't watch DVDs on your Linux desktop, since those content owners do not want you to. They explicitly protected their valuable content with CSS which you would have to, again explicitly, circumvent to watch your legally bought DVD on your legally bought computer. As you would not be using a sanctioned program, that would make you effectively an outlaw.

You probably don't listen to MP3 music either, since:

on Linux you would be infringing upon Fraunhoffer's valuable patent portfolio, and
even if you used Ogg Vorbis, the RIAA and friends have repeatedly stated that you do not have authorization to rip and transfer the music tracks from CD's to computers and MP3 players, and without a license you are forbidden to do so by copyright law.

So you only listen to CDs and patiently change them every 50-60 minutes. Occassionally you may play CDs in shuffle mode, just to feel a little adventurous: "Is this really allowed?".

Sorry, too much for me. Freedom to tinker is freedom to tinker. If you think "content" licensing is so important that they can limit what you do with your stuff, then this is probably why DRM does not look so evil to you. But this is precisely why some other people, like Stallman and Moglen, must do things which maybe you don't understand now, but will in some years' time when we see the consequences.

Bad, bad DRM

Posted Sep 26, 2006 6:36 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

Sorry, that was a bit patronizing. I don't know what else to say, I should have shut up.

I also think your work is great.

Bad, bad DRM

Posted Sep 26, 2006 11:03 UTC (Tue) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link]

I think i repeatedly asserted that i find the actions of the content monopoly deplorable.

All that i'm trying to point out is what i already wrote about in great detail: that (unlike the anti-DRM propaganda suggests) not all uses of DRM are evil, and that instead of worrying about the effects of other people's creative works we should rather concentrate on making our body of creative works appealing enough. Trying to fight DRM that tries to protect other people's creative works is misplaced in that respect. By doing that we'll be easily handled with in the policy debate by intentionally confusing us with "pirates who want to steal pay-for content". We are fighting the wrong war in the wrong place and at the wrong time.

I find the idea that we'll suddenly find no tools at our disposal to put free software on very far-fetched. DRM used for content is cumbersome, expensive and slow to every party involved.

Bad, bad DRM

Posted Sep 26, 2006 2:34 UTC (Tue) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]

The DMCA doesn't cover intent.

If I was to sell preflashed BIOS to users who wish to modify their Linux kernel on the TiVO it would put me in jail just as fast as if I sold it intending to allow users to steal content.

It does not matter. Just for the fact that it CAN be used to steal content is what matters.

Anyways what TiVO is doing now is technically illegal according to the GPLv2. It's implied. You guys just aren't going to call them on it, just like you not going to stop people from distributing closed source binarie in their Linux modules. It's up to you.

You can do what you want. I still love your software and appreciate what you guys are doing.