What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
Who Gets To Use Unsold Cruise Cabins at Huge Discounts view!
howlifeworks.com - How to access once-in-a-lifetime trips at significantly less than full price
76 Comments
- spydon, on 05/13/2008, -12/+49DRM sucks :/ and I don't understand why libraries should use it...
- geekzapoppin, on 05/13/2008, -0/+33I am a librarian at the busiest public library in the state of Ky. I am also a vocal opponent of DRM. That being said, the library system where I work offers our patrons access to digital downloads of movies, audiobooks, and music with their library card; all of it wrapped in good-ol' Microsoft DRM. Why, since libraries are staunch proponents of open access to information for as many people as possible? Because we have no choice. Our patrons want digital materials and the *only* way that we can give them the materials that they want is if we use a service that utilizes DRM. There aren't any DRM-free alternatives. It's all due to the publishers demanding it, not because the library wants it. We don't have a say in the matter. Whilst websites like Archive.org (which I recommend to any patron when I can) offer a lot of fantastic materials, DRM-free, the sad reality is that the average library patron could care less about Public Domain and Creative Commons-licensed materials. They want Danielle Steele and Oprah's Book Club. Since we rely on tax dollars from the general public in order to survive, we have no choice but to keep them happy. Unfortunately, for the time-being that means DRM. I hate it, but there you have it. That doesn't stop me from complaining about it to anyone that I can, especially those patrons who can't use our digital materials because they own an iPod or a Mac. I tell them to write a letter to the Library Director or even the State Librarian of KY. Trust me, a written letter goes a long way. Anyway, I hope that clears it up somewhat. We don't want DRM, we're forced to use it.
- brettalton, on 05/13/2008, -2/+21I thought the idea behind open source (GPLed software) went like this:
-- You buy a table, you own the table, you're free to do whatever you want with it (sell it, share it, improve it)
Proprietary software (in terms of licensing) is like this:
-- You buy a table, but you're not allowed to use it for more than the purpose you're licensed under and you're not allowed to share it. If it doesn't do what you want, you can't fix it yourself.
DRM software is even more restrictive:
-- You buy a table, and it watches you to make sure you don't perform any 'unwanted' (unwanted in the eyes of who sold you the table) activities on it. This could be anything from holding a Italian-made vase on it (pretend the company doesn't like Italians in this case), to performing sacrificial slaughter on barn animals (think Halal). - einfeldt, on 05/13/2008, -4/+17Jakykong makes an interesting, but ultimately deceptive point. He / she says that DRM is a type of speech, and that the viewer is not speaking, and that no one is forcing the viewer to use DRM, and so we should allow a speaker to manage his or her speech by using DRM. Let's give Jakykong that point.
But the danger of Jakykong's point is that it is DRM itself which is censorship. If Jankykong, or any author, wants to use DRM, then fine, yes, let THAT PERSON use DRM. But let's not let our government decide which proprietary software vendor gets the nod by using that software vendor's software to be the vehicle that carries the DRM.
The problem with DRM is that it relies on software to implement the lockdown on the content. The concern here is that Microsoft or Apple (the two most likely candidates) are going to have the ability to force, yes force, us to use their software if we want to access books, magazines, radio, and video in the future.
I am a lawyer, and I can tell you for certain that we, as a society, have already dealt with this issue for a long time in our constitutional law: can private citizens or private companies exclude or limit the right of free speech on private property? Different jurisdictions deal with this issue in different ways. Some states in the USA say that if a shopping mall constitutes a public forum, then it anyone has a right to distribute literature on that property. Other states say no, a shopping mall owner has the right to exclude anyone from coming onto the property.
We must not allow private individuals and private companies from walling off the open, public Internet for their own purposes, and that is exactly what proprietary formats like Win32codecs and Apple's proprietary formats achieve. Neither Microsoft nor Apple is compelled to license its software to anyone, and they can, and have, pulled the plug on expressions in a myriad of ways, the most recent being Microsoft's "mistaken" blocking of access to YouTube videos, which are, of course, owned by Microsoft's arch competitor, Google.
So sure, if an individual wants to lock up his or her content in DRM, that is his or her right. But let's not have the public libraries get into the business of deciding which software must be used to access digital books, digital magazines, radio, and videos. Only by requiring that libraries must insist on housing data in open formats will we be assured of seeing that everyone, including GNU Linux users, have access to the creative and scientific fruits of our society.
--
Christian Einfeldt,
Producer, The Digital Tipping Point - teshia, on 05/14/2008, -0/+9This article basically lashes out at the Boston Public Library but totally fails to talk about how they're implementing DRM. There are various kinds. Are they talking about DRM on DVDs? Is it DRM on digital books on tape? Regardless, none of these DRM encrusted materials are encoded by the library. If libraries asked for DRM-free materials from the publishers, they'd get laughed at. What exactly are libraries (who are underfunded by the government to begin with) supposed to be doing to get around this? To be quite honest, this whole article is a little hard on libraries. I expected a lot more from the EFF. They know damn well that libraries are one of the largest opponents of censorship and should be championed, not attacked for DRMs that aren't written or implemented by them.
- fyngyrz, on 05/13/2008, -6/+17Just remember: "No DRM" means no commercial DVDs. They're all DRM'd. No Blueray.
It's fine to protest and revolt, just understand what you're getting into. - Jforsyth89, on 05/13/2008, -1/+11Could someone explain to me what exactly what kind of DRM is used by the Boston Public Library? How restrictive is it? What kind of media has DRM? The article was incredibly vague.
- xXShadowstormXx, on 05/14/2008, -2/+10DRM is on commercial DVDs (I'm assuming we're talking about movies).
- bluearyus, on 05/14/2008, -0/+7I really don't get what the big deal is with DRM used in libraries. That's one of the areas that DRM actually makes sense.In the form of copy protection, where users borrow (FOR FREE) a product, but are unable to freely copy it. If you want to freely copy it, buy the damn thing yourself.
What irks me more is the gall of this retarded Defective By Design to protest libraries (as they have done with the Boston Public Library in the past). Yes, let's protest libraries, one of the last non-virtual centers of education. Instead of praising a place that promotes literacy and reading comprehension, let's bash their use of DRM -_________-. Great this is just what i need, more morons growing up not progressing past txt speak/l33t speak - OliveStreet, on 05/13/2008, -5/+12Like I've even been in a library in the last ten years.
Thanks Google - easy4lif, on 05/13/2008, -0/+7see how well that works out for ya. BPL will agree not to include DRM material and the owners of the books will just stop the whole program altogether and go back to old fashion books.
- thomascj, on 05/14/2008, -0/+6i'm not sure this article could have provided much LESS information.
- lscritch, on 05/13/2008, -1/+6That is exactly what DRM is used for...besides preventing copies.
The content stops working after 3 weeks or whatever. - rek2, on 05/13/2008, -13/+17DRM does sucks I don't understand neither.. :-(
http://www.binaryfreedom.info
http://www.dailyradical.org - antdude, on 05/14/2008, -0/+4Blu-ray. No "e" and there's ah hyphen/dash.
- geekzapoppin, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3If you have viable options to provide our patrons with the materials that they want with no DRM involved, I'm sure that every library in the country would love to hear it. It simply doesn't exist. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't or that it won't eventually; it means that currently it doesn't.
- fakeollie, on 05/14/2008, -0/+4It's not about control, but the abuse of control. DRM serves no other purpose than to restrict what you can do with a piece of media you acquired. And while some of those restrictions are arguably legitimate, i.e. to prevent unauthorized distribution (piracy), they are exploited as an excuse to deny you other uses and rights, such as: fair use, format shifting, time shifting, and so on. They're also frequently employed for the commercial benefit of the content producers or the technology/platform enforcers, such as locking customers to a certain brand or type of devices and softwares. Most of those restrictions are not in your best interest.
DRM converts all digital media content into leased products. You might operate under the deception that once you have paid for it you've acquired ownership, but you haven't. Your access to that media will always be controlled by systems that might get obsolete and unsupported, or keys that can be revoked by the other party. DRM also makes content cost more. It has to be created, tested, licensed, embedded and this cost is passed on to you, and also it's another layer over data, so it consumes more hardware resources than regular media, such as disk space, memory, battery/energy and cpu cycles.
DRM is also usually ineffective. It works as if someone encrypted a message so that only you can read it, and no-one else can copy it. But at the same time, trying to prevent you from copying the message after you've read it. Since in the end you have to be granted access to the content anyway, that creates an access "hole" that can be exploited. For that reason, DRM is usually referred to as a technology "defective by design". The only way to ensure you have continued and future-proof access to DRM'd content is stripping away its DRM layer, either when the DRM itself allows you to (like printing an ebook, or burning an audio cd from purchased digital tracks), or by hacking it (which can be technically hard sometimes, and is illegal in some countries). - miggie, on 05/14/2008, -0/+4What DRM are these people talking about? I work in a Library in NJ and we have the same movies and CDs that you can buy at Target. In fact since I started working there I rip all my CD from the library's catalog. I put it in my computer and iTunes copies it for me. As for movies my cousin has DVD burning software and he copies the movies I check out for him. The only thing that has DRM is an audio book file that you can get of our website but it only plays on PC not Macs.
- crodragn, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2Other issues aside, any mushroom that can watch my bowels as they're being digested, then presumably report that action to the producer, has got to be one bloody strange looking mushroom. And one I probably couldn't bring myself to eat.
- TheRealSol, on 05/13/2008, -9/+12Give us the freedom that we deserve!
- kevincannon, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2Erm, your first paragraph was an excellent analysis of DRM, but you've confused me with your second.
Who says libraries have the expectancy of ownership either. I'm sure they read the contracts they signed up for. - mark076h, on 05/13/2008, -6/+8DOWN WITH DRM!
- atish505, on 05/13/2008, -3/+6No DRM. I think it is also our responsibility to spread the word, create awareness and talk to the common Joe (the Hillary Clinton voters types) on what DRM is all about and what they need to do to join the movement against it.
- HonoredMule, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2Why? I'M the one with the fork AND the higher ground. The table doesn't stand a chance.
- chezwhitey, on 05/13/2008, -6/+9Contrary opinion here:
DRM can be good for consumers. It is not just used to restrict ownership, where I would agree it is misused. It can also be used to enable lending in cases where, without DRM, piracy would otherwise prohibitively discourage the lender.
For instance, I can go to Netlibrary to borrow audiobooks for playing on my DRM-enabled notPod for as long as the checkout (and renewals) period. This is an extremely useful and convenient service that DRM can enable. - twobitsprite, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2"But it seems that there is genuine element of wanting to protect the rights of media producers over their content as well."
There are also philosophical concerns amongst some of us (and please don't construe my statements as being by any means universal) about whether or not content producers have such rights in the first place. Some of us believe that "intellectual property" is an absurd notion to begin with, let alone the ability to enforce -- via the strong arm of the state -- copy protection schemes.
But even within existing standards, there are problems. For example, fair use allows me to copy a CD for personal use, such as for keeping a back up. I personally copy all of my CDs (the few that I buy) and cary the copies around so that if they get scratched, lost or stolen, I haven't lost the data. DRM prevents me from doing this, so that if my DVD gets messed up, I'm forced to buy a new one, even though traditional interpretations of copyright law say that once I've purchased a copy of some data, I have a right to it even if the original medium is destroyed. This all goes out the window with DRM and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the DMCA everyone's talking about).
Another problem is that any device or software available for playing the DVD (or whatever) has to have the license and ability to "turn off" the DRM to play it. This means that while Microsoft can pay money to get such licensing and technology to play DVDs, open source initiatives like Linux can't. So I'm forced to buy and use Windows (or MacOS) if I want to play DVDs on my computer.
I hope this clears more up for you. - HonoredMule, on 05/14/2008, -0/+4The problem is that DRM gives companies the power to create technical 'laws,' and that they can and do use that power to enforce far more restrictive laws on the mere act of /copying/ content (for which we have many legitimate uses which are supposedly protected by law as well) than fair laws would even put on the actual /redistribution/ of content.
It puts a whole new twist on 'corporate-controlled society,' as companies are now literally deciding (arbitrarily) what I personally can and cannot do, and the law backs them blindly. In many content-based markets, we're even losing the ability to own what we purchase in any meaningful sense, while struggling to retain whatever non-possession-benefit the purchase initially provided (i.e. access to media in outdated formats or replacement for a lost copy).
One might suggest that free market prevents the corporate agendas from getting out of control...but how is that supposed to work? Customers are paying the same amount for what looks like the same product, and remain oblivious to the difference right up until they try to exercise a normal possession-based right, are unable to do so, and swallow the blame, assuming that they are just not technically competent enough to exercise that right.
To put it bluntly, there's a whole bloody lot wrong with DRM even at the conceptual level. It ultimately exists to rebuild the societal divide that the internet is taking down. - Fartag, on 05/13/2008, -2/+5I agree with DRM being counted as free speech as long as circumvention of DRM is counted as free speech too! Once DMCA and INDUCE (etc) are sent back to hell where they belong then that would be a huge step in the right direction.
Societies thrive on freely accessible information, and the ability to freely use ideas, and when their information content producers are paid. Right now legislation leans towards the latter while strongly suppressing the other two! This is not a healthy indicator, and there's plenty we can do about it without making every productive member of society a criminal. - Terr01, on 05/14/2008, -1/+3DRM is only "freedom of speech" if you mean "Freedom for some people and not others".
By your logic, it's "free speech" If I say "The moon is made of cheese" and then sue the pants off of anybody who quotes me in order to financially destroy my detractors. - HonoredMule, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Yeah, I should have said distributors. The aim is for the select upper echelon to control content whether they are the producers in a meaningful sense (i.e. MPAA) or not (RIAA).
- rv123, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1Screw DRM, but why do people still use libraries? Why aren't they obsolete yet?
--
http://www.free-ipod-touch.blogspot.com - teshia, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Libraries don't argue that they have control over the DRM content they pass on to patrons. Libraries pay these services to pass on the materials to the public for free. Maybe this makes them a middle-man but it certainly doesn't make them "merely a patron". The average person using these services outside of a library needs to pay for them. If anything, this is a good thing. People can use the content and yes it will expire, but at least they're not paying for it. You point out that the access could be revoked at any time. Yeah, it's awful, but I don't see why the library should be the one taking the flak for it considering they don't dole out the access written into the DRM. Again, complaints against DRM should be directed at the people who write them, the companies that employ them, and the industry that lobbies for them. To blame libraries is totally myopic.
- kevincannon, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1To be honest, if DRM ends up affects the ordinary Joe, they'll then start caring about it.
The main people DRM affects now, is techies who are annoyed that they have to rip DVDs and such like. - inactive, on 05/14/2008, -1/+3I would hate to have a table that watches me while i eat...that would make me very nervous :S
- amoswenger, on 05/13/2008, -13/+14I totally agree. Please end with all those DRMs. This is enough now.
http://www.defectivebydesign.org/
http://www.stopdrm.info/ (in french) - twobitsprite, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1"I agree with DRM being counted as free speech as long as circumvention of DRM is counted as free speech too!"
Precisely. Thank you...
Some people don't realize there's more to DRM than just the technology implementing it. There's a whole legal structure behind it which is one of the real problems. - HonoredMule, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2...to keep content producers on one side (the side getting the cash) and consumers on the other (the side giving it). DRM prevents too much "free information" from empowering small-time operation or allowing competitors into the marketplace of the current monoliths, by making sure that consumers are never able to do anything but consume, and do so within a walled garden that ideally has as few competitors inside the walls as possible.
- srg13, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2It's not the content producers making the money - generally the distributors pay the content producers a set amount, and then the distributors try to make as much money for themselves as they can...
- kevincannon, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Indeed.
Noone's ever explained to me how you can allow rental of any digital media without DRM.
Without any form of rights-management, then renting would become the same as buying. - kevincannon, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Sure why would DFD actually want to provide you with information? Sadly, all their 'call to actions' are always like this. They tell you want to do, but never actually give you any information to make you your own mind.
If you want to get involved in digitl liberties then consider joining the EFF, but not these zealots. - kevincannon, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2How do you do digital movie rentals without DRM?
- inactive, on 10/23/2008, -0/+1Libraries are still useful.
Most people like reading physical books than using a screen. Screens strain their eyes.
--
http://freeipodsetc.co.uk - fakeollie, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2"No, your honor, I didn't kill the guy. Sure, I brought the murder weapon, handed it to the killer and stood there silent while the job was done. I'm pretty sure I've done nothing wrong and I'm excusable of any blame." But I digress.
So, MacParrot. There are more real targets than meets the eye. You see, there's no DRM without direct agreement and support from the technological foundation. These companies you mentioned enjoy the privileged position to make a stand against it, but they wouldn't/won't because it hurts sales and they enjoy having control (walled gardens) and locked-in customers. No one makes these big guys do anything. They do it because it's in their interests. But if they opposed DRM, content providers would have to cave. What, do you think instead of having sales of fair-usable (and piratable) content, labels, publishers and studios would rather have no sales at all? Think again.
Nobody actually forced one of those two companies to put draconian DRM underpinnings in the latest version of their flagship OS. But they put it anyway. Not because it was the right thing to do for their users, or required, but because it would please the content providers, and secure more lucrative deals with them. Cue platform lock-ins, distribution controls, building a base for future products and markets, etc. etc. Oh, and the other mentioned company, just look at their digital music sales. No matter how many "oh-so-heartfelt" letters from billionaire CEOs you read, one has to be really naive to think that anyone, anyone at all, tells a company that has 80% share of a market how they're supposed to sell their product. - AgentVladimir, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2Thanks for that explanation. A lot of the material on this subject seems pretty hyperbolic. Having researched it a bit more I can see that there are obvious problems with DRM of a monopolistic kind. But it seems that there is genuine element of wanting to protect the rights of media producers over their content as well. At the moment, thought, it looks like the whole system is tipped in favour of producer/distributor against consumer.
- HonoredMule, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1How do you do VHS cassette rentals without DRM?
The arguments about needing to protect "temporary license" to watch something are pretty moot--digital rentals exist today despite the fact that DRM does not in fact work at all, and that people can copy DVDs and even online downloads just as easily as they were able to copy VHS tapes before. - MacParrot, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Apple sells the content not so much to make a profit (though they do make some money from it) but to sell the hardware. No content, fewer sales. EMI allowed Apple to sell it without DRM. By your reasoning, Apple should have continued to sell it with the DRM, but they didn't. Granted, it cost more than non-DRM content, but as an incentive it also had twice the bit-rate. That lasted until Amazon was allowed by the content copyright holders to sell the same content that Apple was selling with DRM without it. Apple dropped their prices to match their DRMed content. What's the definitive thing? The content holders hold the cards and they decide what will have DRM and what will not.
So why do they let Amazon sell it without DRM but not Apple? Because they think they are punishing Apple and that FairPlay DRM will be the deciding factor in what player people choose except that's not how it's worked out. I've said this before and I'm amazed that the big studios can't see it. By forcing (yes forcing if they want the content to be available) Apple to use DRM, they ensure that the next player most people buy that already have iPods will be another iPod. It isn't a question of feature set or price, but moving your library of paid-for content to another player. Since the majority of the music you can buy from iTunes still has DRM (by the copyright holder's decree), most of it can only be played on another iPod linked to that user's library. Remove the DRM and maybe people will choose a different player that can play AAC formatted music (which is most of the good ones). Apple and Steve Jobs laughs all the way to the bank.
I'm not blinded by loyalty to Apple or the Mac platform. While it is my preferred OS and I'm willing to pay a premium for that preference, Apple is in the business to make money like every other corporation. Apple's DRM (and everyone else's DRM) sucks and I wish it would die a quick death, but for most people it isn't a factor. Since you can link 5 different computers and several iPods to the same library AND it is child's play to remove the DRM if that's a factor, most people see it as not a big deal.
Lots of people LOVE to call the iPod/iTunes platform a monopoly but the problem is that it doesn't fit the description in any way other than having a large market-share. Apple uses an open format (AAC) for its audio content, allows you to bring in content from any other source you choose (as long as it is an iPod compatible format) and puts no DRM on any of it, and allows you to burn CDs of the DRMed content if you choose to do so. You don't HAVE to use iTunes for content (other than to organize it) if you don't want because Apple doesn't care where the content you prefer comes from. They just want to sell you the hardware.
You talk about DRM of OSes. Apple has NO DRM in their OS. You can put OS X (single-license purchase) on as many Macs as you please and there's no 25 digit code checked back at a corporate database to make sure it's only on one machine. You don't even have to put it on an Apple-branded Mac if you don't want to. OSX86 and Psystar will be happy to show you a way to get around it. If you think Apple isn't aware of OSX86, then you're the one being naive. They've done nothing so far against Psystar mostly I think because there's still too many downfalls for the average person to accept that this is a legitimate choice as compared to an Apple branded machine. I wish them luck and I sincerely hope they work the bugs out because I would love to own a low maintenance C2D tower with some easy to use HD expansion. I owned two Mac clones back in the 90s (A Umax and an APS) and would buy one again. - fakeollie, on 05/14/2008, -1/+3That's right. Once you have no expectancy of ownership, i.e., hiring a loaning service, DRM can be used as a tool to enforce the usual rules of that transaction. But that isn't the case here. Note, DRM turns all content into a lease. There's no ownership in a system where your access can be blocked unilaterally, either by the will of a content producer or as a case of obsolescence, abandonment of platform. Still people are lied into "buying" DRM'd content.
What's appalling in the context of the original article is that a library is also denied ownership of information. So this DRM content they are loaning to patrons is itself being loaned to them, and could be revoked at anytime by the will of private corporations (content producers). That doesn't sound right to me, and certainly isn't in the public interest. Everything's going digital eventually and this is the infancy of it, when the ground rules are supposed to be set. Who do you want to have control over what media people have public access to in future, a curator/librarian or the marketing dept. of a publishing house? - Sairgem, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Bury this comment, wrong response.
- stix213, on 05/14/2008, -1/+1I should re-read the article, cause all I got out of it is that there are some people who actually go to the library still. Are these the same people who's TV's aren't going to work after the digital switch?
-
Show 51 - 82 of 82 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is