What's really wrong with DRM?

Posted Mar 2, 2004 18:08 UTC (Tue) by elanthis (guest, #6227)
In reply to: An encouraging sign by jre
Parent article: The Committee for Economic Development on digital copyright

"They are also disturbingly accepting of private development of DRM, even while they recommend against government-mandated DRM."

What is wrong with that? Sounds like the perfecet situation. With a government mandated DRM system, we can't opt out. I'd be forced to have some kind of DRM setup on my systems even if I didn't want to use DRMd content. Private sector DRM systems let the publishers of content use DRM if they wish, while still allowing us to refuse to use the DRM and tell the publishers to piss off.

The publishers have the right to do whatever they want with what they publish. If you don't like the technology or medium through which they distribute their content, don't buy it. If you are buying their content, you have no right to complain about DRM, because you were dumb enough to buy it. (The exception of course is if you buy it not knowing it's DRMd; we have some laws and are getting more to prevent that.)

The same goes for the old DVD/CSS issue. Yes, it sucked that I couldn't play DVDs on my workstation. Does that mean it should be illegal for DVDs to have CSS? No. I don't have a God-given right to watch DVDs. If you don't like a situation, boycott the product/service.

The other point is that DRM is being so heavily researched and implemented because people *are* breaking copyright restrictions. I have tons of friends who copy music. My sister freely copies images/pictures into her own published works. I can tell them how immoral it is, cite laws, explain why it's not fair to the artists/musicians they enjoy, etc., but they don't care. It's those people who make DRM a necessity. Don't rail on companies for protecting their investment; rail on the assholes who make it necessary.

What's really wrong with DRM?

Posted Mar 2, 2004 19:46 UTC (Tue) by jre (guest, #2807) [Link]

"What is wrong with that? Sounds like the perfecet situation."

You are certainly entitled to that opinion. But, if I may, I'd like to say again that private use of DRM can be a problem in some circumstances. And, after reflection, I think I need to cut some more slack for the authors of the report.

What could possibly be wrong with a system which leaves both parties to a deal free to accept or reject it? I, too, find the idea appealing. As a practical matter, though, your ability to opt out of any deal depends on the availability of an alternative or your willingness to do without.

"Private sector DRM systems [allow] us to refuse to use the DRM and tell the publishers to piss off."

Indeed, they do. And if you are confident that you will always be able to find a suitable (and legal) alternative, or get along without whatever the DRM was protecting, more power to you. But some people do feel that they have, if not a "God-given right to watch DVDs", a set of rights under law and equity to use their property in ways that DRM is often crafted to prevent. The DCC report, to its credit, acknowledges this fact. For example, on page 38, the following footnote:

"* On May 4, 2003, The New York Times reported that "[s]ome of the world's biggest record companies, facing rampant online piracy, are quietly financing the development and testing of software programs that would sabotage the computers and Internet connections of people that download pirated music. ... Industry spokespeople have said publicly that, just as the 'left' believes it has a right to hack overly protective DRM measures, the content industry believes it also has a right to use self-help."

The message we ought to take away from this is that copyright law is heavily politicized, and that we do ourselves no favors by pretending that we can just ignore what's happening in our statehouses and Congress (if we're in the US), and just boycott whatever we don't like. The rest of the world is affected differently, but we have seen some very Bad Ideas wash across the pond in both directions. Pay attention, write your representatives, and vote!

As to cutting the DCC authors more slack, I do note that they took a more balanced view than I acknowledged -- saying, for example, "In particular, the capacity of such systems to accommodate users' rights traditionally allowed under intellectual property law needs to be further explored so that the appropriate copyright balance can be maintained."

They were more clueful than I let on, and deserve credit for it.

What's really wrong with DRM?

Posted Mar 3, 2004 13:57 UTC (Wed) by brugolsky (guest, #28) [Link] (1 responses)

And in, e.g., education? What happens when you or your child is offered the alternative of buying 20 e-books with DRM (that, by the way, can only be read using some Microsoft e-book reader) for $5 apiece, or pay $50 each for the hardcover?

The school or university will tell you that it is not "mandating" anything -- you are free to go with the vastly higher cost alternative, if there is one.

I have zero trust that some lawmaker or administrator won't tell us to "get over it," and trade away a little freedom for reduced cost. It is already happening.

What's really wrong with DRM?

Posted Mar 6, 2004 1:09 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link]

What happens when you or your child is offered the alternative of buying 20 e-books with DRM (that, by the way, can only be read using some Microsoft e-book reader) for $5 apiece, or pay $50 each for the hardcover?

I believe the implication of this rhetorical question is that if DRM weren't legally available to a publisher, that the option instead would be 1) e-books without DRM for $5 apiece; 2) $50 each for hardcover.

I really doubt that's true. If DRM weren't legally available to a publishers, the $50 hardcopy would be the only option.

That's why I'm a big fan of DRM. Some day it will allow publishers to offer me product cheaper, and in more convenient form, than they can today.

What's really wrong with DRM?

Posted Mar 4, 2004 8:43 UTC (Thu) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]

Copyrigthed material are state-enforced monopolies. If we ended this state-enforced monopoly, and instead let private actors agree on whichever agreement they like, I'd agree with you. The problem is, increasingly copyrigth-holders want to have their cake - and eat it too.

They want the state to intervene on their behalf;

They want the state to enforce their monopoly. (aka copyright)
They want the state to prevent circumvention of their faulty technologies. (aka DMCA)
They want the state to prolong their monopolies indefinitely, the last 40 years congress prolonged copyrigth 11 times.
They want the right to subpoena the names and adresses of anyone simply *suspected* of breaking their copyright.
They want the state to forbid consumers from posessing general-purpose equipment (such as computers without DRM or recording-equipment) on the theory that such equipment *could* be used for copyright-infringement. (all tools *could* be used for illegal activities, that's a poor reason to forbid them...)
They want the state to license spectrum to them, so that they can have a monopoly also on one of the most important marketing-channels, namely radio (and to some degree tv)

But they do *not* want the state to *ever* intervene on behalf of the consumers;

They do *not* want the state to demand that Fair use remains possible.
They do *not* want the state to demand that works actually become available when copyright expire. (all DRM-technologies I've seen comes with no expiry-mechanism whatsoever)
They do *not* want the state to tear down artificial barriers to free trade, such as "region encoding"

That's the thing I have a problem with. The way I see it *either* the state should stay out of the picture, and let people trade in a free market. *or* the state should enforce both sides of the "balance" of copyright-law.

The current trend, where the state increasingly want to enforce only one side of the equation, is intolerable.