digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Help Fight DRM

defectivebydesign.org — Join the Action Alert Network to stop DRM

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • grooveTEKMusic, on 10/12/2007, -61/+16Wayjer,

    Yes, I agree, we're loosing our grounds everyday and more and more corporatons taking our freedrom of choice away. These days we buy things not to own but to lease. This is right at all.. We need to stand up & Thanks for the post.....

    Over & Out,

    Morpheus
    http://grooveTEK.blogspot.com | http://grooveTEK.net
    • HogLeg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+33We need to do SOMETHING about these guys sneaking so-called "Anti Piracy" scum-ware onto our hard drives. I've got something called Pace Anti-Piracy software on my computer right now, and can't find a good way to get rid of it. It was put on my comp. when I just Played a movie.

      So I say Screw them- If I put software on Their systems, they'd consider me a malicious hacker. So what are THEY?

    • rastan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17Just as a note grooveTEK, you're probably being buried because signature spam is bad, mmmkay?

      Don't do it, digg doesn't have signatures for a reason.
    • Mejogid, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9Not that I use a signiature, but I really don't understand the huge problem diggers have with them. On most forums they are allowed and are rarely obnoxious. If some people hate it that much, couldn't digg just allow proper signiatures and give users a chance to block them? Or maybe be able to mark a comment as spam and have all links removed. Something like that.

      Sorry to go off topic, but despite not using signiatures I find it annoying when someone puts a link to a legitimate site at the end of a decent comment and get burried.
    • starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3>We need to do SOMETHING about these guys sneaking so-called "Anti Piracy"
      >scum-ware onto our hard drives.

      i think that people are doing what needs to be done. the battle is being lost on rhetoric. instead of "piracy" it should be called "civil disobedience." one of the tests judging a law is how many people are made criminals by it. this is clearly a case of the future and the old brick and mortar mentality. nobody has any problem with others making a living with intellectual property- in many cases if the brick and mortar was gone the person whose intellectual property it is would make more money. i support this. its the methods of the old that cause problems for the new. aside from the bribery... its a battle of terminology. law makers that have no clue about what they are voting on have very little incentive not to pass laws against "piracy" they only understand the negative connotations. its "civil disobedience." we should never let anyone get away with calling it piracy.
    • GrinningFool, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1"Sorry to go off topic, but despite not using signiatures I find it annoying when someone puts a link to a legitimate site at the end of a decent comment and get burried."

      If it's a legitimate site, let him submit it to digg proper, and not try to slip in the back door by adding it to his signature...
  • grooveTEKMusic, on 10/12/2007, -38/+5Wayjer,

    Yes, I agree, we're loosing our grounds everyday and more and more corporatons taking our freedrom of choice away. These days we buy things not to own but to lease. This is right at all.. We need to stand up & Thanks for the post.....

    Morpheus @ grooveTEK Electronica Music
  • cliffspence, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Consider it done. Thanks for the link, wayjer.
  • simonrward, on 10/12/2007, -49/+5No thanks. I've nothing against DRM.
  • foshaug, on 10/12/2007, -16/+8Help to put and end to DRM
  • cedrick, on 10/12/2007, -16/+1i see where you all are comnig from, but it's not like the internet etc. is a dictatorship. it's good to take action, but isn't it a bit too soon? has congress passed any laws restricting sites to being a certain way? cuz if they have, i'm behind, fill me in.
    • dakkon2399, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14The point is not to wait until it is put into law. It's a lot easier to influence potential law now, than try to repeal existing law that you disagree with.
  • sketchstudios, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16how does submitting my phone number help fight drm? sounds fishy to me. beware.
  • pbaehr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Hopefully they have more aggressive ideas than internet petitions. I'm tired of arm-chair protests. I'd like to see some real campaigns against DRM start.
    • nwoolls, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Unfortunately, the internet is geared towards those stuck to their arm-chairs.
    • electromagnetic, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1All people ever do to protest on the internet is sign e-petitions, which are even less effective than standard petitions. What they should do is organise large scale email campaigns, effectively doing an email bomb but in a legal way (Is it even illegal? I never read how it turned out for that kid who email bombed his former employer) or just do huge page drains - keep clearing the cache and refreshing so it uses up major amounts of their bandwidth.

      There's always Hacktevism, but you would have to live in a non-extradition country. I think someone should do this to the Chinese government, we can't be extradited to China because of human rights abuses and spam gets through the countries firewall so just hack their government websites with pro-democracy/free speech stuff and spam their inboxes. If they get through people will start spreading the word - you can't block the entire internet without people noticing lol
    • amphora, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The FSF wants you to sign up to be notified of actual meatspace actions. This isn't an internet petition.
  • nwoolls, on 10/12/2007, -36/+5DRM has enabled me to listen to all the music I want, legally, for a small monthly fee.
    • kimos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22No. You could do that regardless.

      DRM restricts the types of players you can use to listen to your music, to which machines you can copy the music you paid for, and what you choose to do with the music you paid for. It also allows for you to be tracked and treated like a criminal.

      You've been able to download and listen to music legally for years. DRM has just made it harder, and has strengthened the hold of big corporations.
    • aplardi, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4I agree, services like Yahoo's are really great. Although, DRM goes too far sometimes. And there needs to be a good standard, not waving standards.

      For example, you can burn iTunes MUSIC to a cd, but you can burn iTunes movies/tv shows to a VCD/DVD.

      Not to mention the savings are minimal, so we are still at a stage where we are better off buying new/used mediums than buying digital stuff that we can lose online. If we lose a file (not counting itunes one time recover), DRM wants us to pay for it again online. BUT if we have a file and lose our internet (like on a plane trip perhaps?) they want us to hook online to access what we have.

      Before you know it, people who have good memory will be getting sued for knowing more than 8 seconds of a song.
    • spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13No, companies enabled you to do this. They could have done this without DRM but they chose to restrict you first. It's like me saying I'll let you listen to all the music you want, legally, for $5 a month, but the catch is that I'm singing it and playing the ukelele with my pants down.
    • iSEPIC, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19QUOTE: DRM has enabled me to listen to all the music I want, legally, for a small monthly fee. UNQOTE:

      what a ***** idiot.
    • somerandomnerd, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3"You've been able to download and listen to music legally for years."

      How?
    • nwoolls, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1"You've been able to download and listen to music legally for years. DRM has just made it harder, and has strengthened the hold of big corporations."

      No, it's made it easier. Napster, Urge, iTunes, all make it incredibly easy to purchase and listen to legal music online. Where were the services that were this easy but without DRM?

      It wasn't a profitable enough business until DRM was introduced. Then companies stepped up to the plate to make great services.
    • ccanni1028, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Napster and iTunes didn't come out when they did because DRM was created. They would have come out even without DRM, most likely around the same time. It was created when the technology was available (the increase in people using broadband to quickly download the files, etc.) and there was a demand for it.
    • Bigcat1021, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4DRM sucks, yes. But how are the artists supposed to protect their works? It is easy to say "***** 'em," but until there is a viable business model sans DRM, DRM is here to stay.

      You can argue the morality of DRM and copyright all you want, but the fact is that companies need to make money to exist. I'm not defending their actions, but sometimes people forget economic reality.
    • spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@Bigcat1021

      "DRM sucks, yes. But how are the artists supposed to protect their works?"

      They're not. If you're an artist you release your work into the world. Once it's out there, it's OUT THERE. Corporations will keep on coming up with wacky schemes to sell and resell their products, and the people will keep on finding ways around them. Information wants to be free.

      So you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want your art to be seen you have to show it. If you want your art to be secure you have to hide it.
    • Bigcat1021, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2@spyrochaete

      I understand your points, but if that is that case, shouldn't it apply to everything? What is your job? Would you like to do it for free?
    • millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5eMusic has existed before the iTMS. They didn't have DRM back then, and they don't have DRM now. The only difference is, all the big band RIAA-represented artists have jumped ship to the DRM music stores. eMusic still only sells non-DRM MP3s.

      Interestingly, nearly every stand-up comic has their stuff on eMusic (if they're represented by George Carlin's laugh.com label, which isn't RIAA).
    • MasteRR, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Bigcat1021

      The artists make very little off of CD sales, so it wouldn't hurt them either way. It's just more publicity. The majority of the money they make comes from live preformances. If you really care about supporting a band you would go to a concert once in a while. Buying a CD or buying music online only supports the record companies.
  • cal3b, on 10/12/2007, -10/+11Great idea. I think we should start a petition to stop terrorists too...
    I mean everyone listens to Internet petitions, right?
    • amphora, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If you would follow the link you might find out this is not an Internet petition. This is the beginning of a network of technology activists willing to bring the issues surrounding DRM into the public consciousness of their local communities.
  • Otto, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3This is a freakin' weird article. I know everybody is down on DRM, and for good reason, but this seems like either blogspam or something else uber-lame.

    The gist seems to be that you put in your info and they will SMS you flashmob type crap to protest DRM in your local area. Which is just stupid as heck, IMO.
    • babbling, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Why? It gets attention. That's the goal. People need to start asking "what is DRM? why is it bad?"

      If people are interested, they will find out about DRM, and then they will be able to make a concious decision about whether or not they're comfortable with the idea of DRM.
  • ImTheDarkcyde, on 10/12/2007, -16/+6if you don't like DRM.. don't buy the product.

    people really overreact when it comes to DRM, do any of you own a business? If not, it doesn't take business school to tell you RUNNING A COMPANY IS ABOUT MAKING MONEY.
    • pornel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9No DVDs, no downloads, no HDTV? It doesn't work. If everything has DRM, all you can do is hide in a cave.
    • m1abrams, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18DRM is not about making money. DRM is about controlling how you use something. Which in many cases circumvents your "Fair use" right. You can make money without DRM.
    • Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10> No DVDs, no downloads, no HDTV? It doesn't work.

      It doesn't work because people refuse to boycott something if it causes the slightest inconvenience in their lives. Your comment is a fine example. You really can't do without DVDs and HDTV? Being able to watch TV is more important to you than the freedom to do what you like with your own property?

      > If everything has DRM, all you can do is hide in a cave.

      But hardly anything has DRM. It's mostly limited to particular types of entertainment products. But if it isn't stopped now, it *will* be in everything.

      If you honestly think not watching TV and DVDs is like hiding in a cave, then you really need to switch off the TV and realise there's more to life than sitting motionless on the sofa.
    • kimos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15@m1abrams: Yes, exactly!

      Corporations use DRM to try to lock you into their formats, to make more money off of you. The whole thign is crazy...

      Say you bought a Toyota, but these days all cars come with AutomotiveDRM. You sign a contract when you buy your Toyota that says you can only take your car to Toyota service stations, and drive them on Toyota approved roads. It just so happens that Toyota cars will only accept Toyota Gas, even though VolksWagon gas is exactly the same thing. If you try to drive on a Ford road, your car will just stop. If you're clever and find a way to get into the Ford roads, they accuse you of stealing the car that you have bought.

      So why do people stand for it when we buy DVDs, music, whatever? Like @pornel said, it's hard to avoid it by not buying it.
    • Bhima, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@pornel

      There is a way. I run an OpenBSD firewall / gateway. Doesn't matter if it downloaded or I rented it from the local videothek. Every piece of content I get comes through it and nothing comes through until after I've stripped the DRM crap off.

      No root-kits, No DRM, No Viruses, And my personal peeve No "disabled user operations" (UOPs).
      In fact my collection has *No Restrictions* of any sort.
  • chriscasey, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2.. but, I like DRM.
  • DJFMA, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4Online petitions and things like this NEVER work.
  • MonaLisa, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4If you don't like DRM, don't use it.
    • dakkon2399, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4The problem is that in many cases we don't have a decision whether or not to use DRM. Currently you can buy a cd and rip it, avoiding DRM (usually ...although Sony's root kit incident demonstrates this isn't 100% certain). However, if the recording industry had their way, we would have no choice but to use their DRM. I don't have any particular problem with "Digital Rights Management", I have a problem with the current implementations. There should be a healthy balance between artist content protection and consumer rights protection. Currently, the recording industries couldn't give a fig about the consumer's except that they buy products.
    • senfo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Don't use it? And how exactly do you propose that? It's not like a bar of soap you can avoid if it gives you an alergic reaction. If the movies and music you want come with a DRM implementation, you don't have much of a choice.
    • amphora, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Don't use it?

      If we don't get out ahead of this we may not have a choice to "not use it." What is all state and federal documents were protected with DRM? What if all previously free broadcast media was protected with DRM?

      Two things would occur.

      The death of all unregulated and regulated uses of copyrighted material except those explicitly allowed by content distributors (notice I did not say creators b/c they are not the same) turning us all into "consumers" of media.

      Free software on the desktop and free software as a platform for media distribution would be thrust into a ghetto of irrelevance as far as any average computer user were concerned.
    • niceyuk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Don't use it? And how exactly do you propose that? It's not like a bar of soap you can avoid if it gives you an alergic reaction. If the movies and music you want come with a DRM implementation, you don't have much of a choice."

      Easy, dont buy it, you dont NEED music or movies so you can easily avoid them. Since the RIAA started suing people I've almost completely stopped buying music and I used to spend about $40-50 a month on CDs. Now Im not funding RIAAs court cases and I've saved a load of money in the process.

      DRM doesnt have any benefits whatsoever for the consumer, it doesnt even stop piracy, it just restricts what you can do with the products you buy.
    • MasteRR, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Don't use it? And how exactly do you propose that? It's not like a bar of soap you can avoid if it gives you an alergic reaction. If the movies and music you want come with a DRM implementation, you don't have much of a choice."

      I havn't bought a CD that profits the RIAA since I signed a boycott back in the days of the old Napster. However, I have a stack of about 6 CDs that I bought in the last month. Legally.

      It's not all the big name artists, and it's not all new, but that means jack to me. It's all entertaining.

      There are alternatives.
  • waxpoet, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4OK. how about putting what DRM is on the digg description instead of having to hunt through thier site for it?

    from their site:
    What is DRM?
    "Digital Rights Management" software is actually designed to impose restrictions on computer users. The use of the word "rights" in this term is propaganda, designed to lead you unawares into seeing the issue from the viewpoint of the few that impose the restrictions, while ignoring that of the many on whom the restrictions are imposed.
  • jaymzz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7If you don't like DRM, buy as few products as possible that support it. It worked for Divx.

    (to clarify - THIS Divx : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX)
    • pornel, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2How? Can I buy a Divx movie instead of DVD? ...without being hunted like an animal by MPAA?
    • m1abrams, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7To clear up, I believe the above poster is referring to "Divx" as in the self destruct DVDs that Circuit City was pushing in the early days of DVD.
    • RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Pornel, you just proved his point. You had no idea what the original "divx" was. The market will decide what level of DRM is acceptable, not some internet petition.
    • catastrophee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2^For the link just take away the ) at the end and it works.
    • amphora, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1RadiantBeing:

      This is not an Internet petition. This is the market acting. This is the technologists of the USA banding together and making the public understand what DRM is and why it will harm them. The campaign is only a week old and already has garnered a significant amount of attention. Once events start occurring nationwide (there has only been one event to date) the message will begin to escape the technology community and enter the public consciousness.
  • superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2If you buy the $500 PS3 you are saying no to DRM in the form of not supporting HDMI. That could at least stop the ICT flag cold if enough people do not buy HDMI equipment...
    • spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Yes, if you want to support the fight against DRM, support Sony. Sony has proven themselves to be a reputable company with the best interests of its customers in mind.
    • Flooq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Lets see how their download service works first.
  • moracity, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2I'm still waiting for someone to explain how DRM harms anyone. It's all rubbish. The market will decide if DRM lives or dies.
    • spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8DRM means that you never own the products you buy - you simply rent them, definitely or indefinitely. When you buy an album, for example, you buy a license to play it on a certain device for a certain amount of time. You'll be allowed to make a certain number of copies (perhaps zero) on certain media, and those copies will work on certain devices.
    • ozydingo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I wish people weren't so painfully ignorant to believe that this kind of thing is as simple as the model they teach in econ 101. You've got the huge majority of supplied goods being shipped with this crap because it beneftis the large companies who can afford to flood the market with their crap to drown out anyone who tries to do it differently, and it's no longer up to a simple model of healthy competition weeding out piss-poor products with annoying "features."
    • spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@ozy

      Why not? If enough people hate DRM some small companies will make DRM-free players and media. If enough people embrace those devices the big companies will be forced to fall in line.
    • ozydingo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@spyrochaete

      Ideally, yes, and hopefully that's exactly what will happen. For now, however, the larger comapnies that plan to put as many restrictions as possible on the flexibility of using their products are easily able to drown out those smaller companies. That combined with the general public's ignorance on what DRM is and how it affects what they buy makes if very difficult for that to happen. It's this type of thing that intoduces the unidealities in the market model beyond a simple "product X is better / less restrictive on its users than product Y and is priced the same so it becomes more succesful."

      I'm doing my part by not supporting ridiculously DRM-laced products, and hope all reading this are doing the same.
    • somerandomnerd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@spyrochaete

      I think you're confusing DRM with intellectual property laws. IP laws say that you can't do things like copy music and give it to your friends, or sample or perform music and make money from it. DRM is a completely different issue. Without a DRM system in place to prevent people from ignoring IP laws, record companies simply won't allow online distribution of their music.
    • spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@somerandomnerd

      That's why the record companies are quaking in their boots! More and more artists are going to break away from the traditional distribution channels if it pisses off their fans.
    • SmeRndmGy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Why not? If enough people hate DRM some small companies will make DRM-free players and media. If enough people embrace those devices the big companies will be forced to fall in line."

      In theory yes, but one group (RIAA) controls most of the available music, which includes most popular music, and they will not allow it to be sold without DRM (except for CDs, but they still call you a criminal if you do certain things with the CDs you buy). It is network economics. They control the source of music. Sure someone could start a competing service, but they would need their own source of music. This music would not be the popular music that everyone wants, so this service would not attract the average user. If you want Backstreet Boys, you have to get it from the RIAA, or "illegally". DRM free music stores can only sell the music that the RIAA doesn't want, which means unknown independent bands that there is not a large demand for. The RIAA is the problem. Only after their inevitable demise will the situation be able to improve.
    • amphora, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1DRM destroys both unregulated and regulated uses of copyrighted material:

      Lawrence Lessig explains the problem with current copyright law and DRM here:

      http://www.eff.org/IP/freeculture/
  • lotusleaf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"Protesters provide a nasty "vista" for Gates"
    "The surprise protest marked the launch of DefectiveByDesign.org, a direct-action campaign that will target Big Media and corporations peddling Digital Restrictions Management (DRM)"
    http://www.fsf.org/news/vista-hazmat
  • chriscasey, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1I don't see DRM as a bad thing. I think there have been some awful implementations which have led people to associate DRM with Malware. As a technology, though, I think it's something that enables companies to be more liberal with their content distribution.

    I'm not against Valve's "Steam" product which I use to play Half-life 2. I've nothing against Apple's iTunes, which I use to listen to The Beastie Boys. I've nothing against the Xbox 360's Marketplace, which I use to play game demos and purchase 'casual' games.

    DRM is a good thing in my life; I won't fight it.
    • spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9You can play Half Life 2 freely and back up your files, but does Valve really need to authenticate you online every time you play a single player game? What happens when Steam goes down? You don't own HL2, you rent it.

      You can put a Beastie Boys album on your iPod, but if you lose your local file can you copy it from your iPod to your computer? If you bought it from ITMS you'll have to buy it AGAIN.

      Our analog rights allowed us to copy music to whatever format we wish, to be enjoyed on any platform of our choosing. The entertainment industries feel they've been too generous with their customers, so they have decided to "manage" our digital rights. Rights management literally means limiting our rights. DRM is an excuse to collect marketing data, to make lawful backups impossible, and to force user to buy the same content on multiple media.
    • kimos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7DRM is not a good thing. Steam, iTMS, and everything else are all still possible without restricting how end users are allowed to use the content they buy. DRM hurts the customer while giving the company more money.
    • chidade, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5And which DRM distributing company's PR department do you work for?
    • michaelstone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"You can put a Beastie Boys album on your iPod, but if you lose your local file can you copy it from your iPod to your computer? If you bought it from ITMS you'll have to buy it AGAIN."

      No, you're outright wrong. It's called backing up. By burning everything you download to a data CD or DVD or extra harddrive, you don't have to re-buy it. Of course, why let the facts get in the way of your illogical fight?

      _________________________________________________________________
      "DRM is not a good thing. Steam, iTMS, and everything else are all still possible without restricting how end users are allowed to use the content they buy. DRM hurts the customer while giving the company more money."

      Really, now? Please explain why you need more that 5 computers and %u221E iPods to play your songs. Please explain why you would ever need to legally burn more than seven copies of one playlist. Explain why you're buying tracks from iTunes if you have a Creative player.

      Also, explain why you're not equally angry that hundreds of thousands of people are dying in Darfur, Iran is currently making nuclear weapons which could easily lead to WWIII, and the current U.S. Administration is spying on their own citizens.

      It just seems to me that the fight over DRM is insignificant when compared.
      _______________________________________________________________
      "And which DRM distributing company's PR department do you work for?"

      And you explain why you felt the need for an ad hominem attack.
    • amphora, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"It's called backing up."

      This is a regulated use of copyright material also called fair use. If DRM systems become more prominent then they are today you can kiss both unregulated uses and regulated uses of copyrighted material goodbye.
  • azermuffin, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1How bout this. When YOU create your OWN content, you can decide what price to sell it at, or whether or not to have DRM. Until that day happens, why don't you stop forcing your choices on others.
    • Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Are you talking to us or the industry? Surely you don't think the artists are the ones setting the prices or imposing the DRM.
    • azermuffin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I guess if you question the groupthink mentality at Digg your modded down into oblivian. Ironic for a place thats suppossed to be all bout free speech and diversity.
  • kc7gr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Hmmm...

    No description of the people or organization behind the thing. No statement of how your personal information will (and, more importantly, will NOT) be used. No link to the party responsible for the page. No description of how whoever it is plans to accomplish their goals.

    In fact, it looks like nothing more than a collection point for names, E-mail addys, and phone numbers. It could be anything from "legitimate" to some spammer fishing for addresses to sell to marketer.

    Sorry, this trips too many of my 'paranoid' alarms. No digg, reported as lame.

    • amphora, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Maybe if you had looked at the page before reporting it lame you would have noticed

      A) The organization behind this "thing" is the Free Software Foundation www.fsf.org

      B) The "Privacy" link at the top of every page.

      http://defectivebydesign.org/privacy

      "Membership Contact information is requested at the time of a membership sign-up. Customer lists are not sold or distributed to third parties. Defective By Design uses this member list notify members of events in your area, news and occasional solicitations. Members can opt out of receiving email when they sign up.

      User Registration
      Defective By Design uses registration lists to send news updates and occasional solicitations. You can be removed by submitting a request through our webform.

      The restrictions described here on the dissemination of personal information are not subject to change. This policy is updated occasionally but the changes will not reduce the privacy protection of visitors. If there are changes made in the future, the changes will not affect information already collected.

      We maintain strict internal policies against unauthorized disclosure or use of customer information.

      Customer Information
      All information related to financial transactions is handled through a secure connection.

      Donations
      Contact information is requested at the time of a donation. This information is used to verify the initial credit card transaction. Donor lists are not sold or distributed to third parties. The Free Software Foundation uses these donor lists to send occasional solicitations and its biannual newsletter. Donors can opt out of all contact or specify only print or e-mail contact at the time of the donation. Donor names may be used in print advertisements. At the time of the donation, the donor can ask to be anonymous, so that their name will not be publicly recognized."
    • GregoryHeller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The footer of the page tells you that "DefectiveByDesign.org is a campaign of the Free Software Foundation Empowered by CivicActions.com"
      with links to the FSF and CivicActions telling exactly who is behind the campaign.

      http://defectivebydesign.org/privacy tells you how your information will and won't be used.

      and from the sign up form:
      * A password and instructions will be sent to this e-mail address, so make sure it is accurate. We will send you email about upcoming actions, you can unsubscribe at anytime. We will never sell or share your email address.
      ** International Codes OK
      *** We'll SMS you with urgent actions in your area
  • GrinningFool, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Yeah. Run along and sign your e-petitions while you're at it, that'll tell 'em.
    • GrinningFool, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1You people are harsh. And apparently, you believe in the efficacy of e-petitions...
    • amphora, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is not an e-petition. This information is not being delivered to a media company, technology company or governmental body.

      This information is being used to organize technologists at the local level to take action against DRM in their communities.
  • tehgooch, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Yet more big government solutions to solve big government problems. No digg.
    • amphora, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Huh?

      Big Government Problem? (I see this part with copyright law)

      Big Government Solution?

      Please elaborate...

      I find your ideas intriguing, please sign me up for your newsletter.
    • tehgooch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Big business is using the government's own laws to cause these problems, and you expect the government to fix it with more laws? Just get rid of the old laws and reduce the governments power so that big business can't take advantage of it. Then big business would have to work for YOU.

      Check out the libertarian party: www.lp.org or www.libertarian.ca if you're in Canada like me.
  • Quix, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Does anyone honestly believe the media companies are going to bless the idea of their property freely zinging back and forth on the Internet? It will NEVER HAPPEN. How long have DVDs and VHS tapes been copy-protected? DRM is here and it isn't going anywhere. No number of online petitions will change that.

    What I would rather fight for is BETTER QUALITY ONLINE FILES! I'll suck it up and live with the DRM, but I WON'T buy 128 kbps music files. I'm not buying until the quality goes UP!

    And don't get me started about the 320x240 video files (i.e. VHS quality) in iTunes. Grrrrr.
    • BeReasonable, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You act as though the two aren't related. DRM is as much about profit as it is about control.

      As others have pointed out, with DRM, big companies know they have you locked into their content so they will naturally move to maximize their profit by selling you the cheapest product they can without motivating you to leave.

      You could say, without too much stretching, that DRM is why we have such crap formats. Companies don't have to compete on quality. They just have to get you in the door initially with free crap, cool-looking designs or "low" prices. Once a person buys into the system, they usually find it too much of a hassle or loss to abandon their current collection and switch to a whole new system. So, companies have carte blanche to provide crappy products and simply change colors or "re-mix" them and convince you that this is the new great thing you've been waiting for. Never mind that it's not actually better or improved. It just looks different or now "BonezDaKiller" says "*****" in the last verse, instead of the first.

      Also, as far as things go, just because it's always been that way doesn't mean that is the way it's supposed to be. Accepting the status quo means the status quo never changes.
    • spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"What I would rather fight for is BETTER QUALITY ONLINE FILES!"

      There is no better way to fight than by trading lower quality online files. You can bake a plate of brownies and ask the media companies very sweetly while smiling in your little sun dress, or you can take control and force them to respond. If media companies bog down average quality content with annoying restrictions then people will flock to the equally good pirated versions. If consumers are offered a superior product then they will have an incentive to spend their money.
    • Quix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"There is no better way to fight than by trading lower quality online files."

      I fail to honestly believe that media companies would say "Hmm, online trading of low bitrate files is epidemic; let's boost our bitrates and give them an incentive to buy." I mean, it's logical to us as consumers, but these people just don't seem to think this way. It's sad, but it's true.

      Start an online petition demanding lossless files. If I have to deal with DRM, shouldn't I get the same quality for my money as I get for buying a CD? Yes, I should. That's a petition I'd sign. And my buying of online music would increase substantially if I didn't feel I was listening to compromised quality. Let me buy lossless files, archive them myself, and re-encode to whatever format/bitrate best fits my needs.
    • amphora, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What size should we make your shackles Quix?
  • astrotrain, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Get Linux!

    Most of the scumware is build for the mass Windows market. Notice how nothing was mentione about this
    scumware on Linux...

    "Things that make you go...HMmmmmmmmm"
    C & C Music Factory

    P.S. Windows users disable your AutoPlay... This is one step from preventing Scumware invading your Windows
    OS. Way to many ppl leave this enabled to allow their Windows boxes from autoplaying their music
    CDs.

  • Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Great idea, even necessary, but not too sure about the implementation. What's with the guys in the DEVO suits?

    Best way to fight digital brainwashing is to never EVER pay money for a DRM'd file.

    I keep reading Digg posts about how oh-so-great iTunes is. Well, I saw it for what it is, and deleted it from my PC a couple of days after making the mistake of installing it.
  • somerandomnerd, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1The problem isn't with DRM- it's with the way it's used by companies to lock customers into their product under the pretence that it's protection against piracy.

    If DRM was properly managed so that you could play your protected WMA files on your iPod or your iTunes downloads on your PPC etc. etc. then there wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem.

    The potential for a music distribution channel with a working DRM system in place is enormous. Imagine a subscription to your favourite bands news, interviews, demos and singles. Imagine a bluetoothed iPod which automatically downloads them whenever it finds an internet connection (ie. not just when you take it home and plug into your computer), or from another wireless iPod that happens to have it, or being able to wirelessly give a copy to a friend to listen to on his mobile phone [insert arbitrary figure] times before deciding whether to buy it for themselves.

    Knee jerk anti-DRM protestors are going to make that kind of idea much harder to become a reality.
    • Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6> The problem isn't with DRM

      Yes, it is. Whether you are legally permitted to copy something is not something any technological scheme can determine. Even a lawyer can't tell you - because fair use/fair dealings/etc are grey areas, in some cases you have to wait until a judge makes a ruling before you find out whether a particular copy is legal.

      Because DRM can't tell when something is legal or illegal, it must curtail legal copying as well as illegal copying. That's DRM's fundamental nature, and it can't be fixed.

      You are right in saying that lock-in is also a problem, but it's not the only problem with DRM. To allow DRM is to allow the erosion of fair use/fair dealings/etc.
    • somerandomnerd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Because DRM can't tell when something is legal or illegal, it must curtail legal copying as well as illegal copying. That's DRM's fundamental nature, and it can't be fixed."

      Hence systems like iTunes, where you can use something on [insert arbitrary figure] password-protected computers, or Steam where you can have it on as many machines as you like, but only use on one at a time.

      So what's the alternative to allow the distribution of music with the approval of the record companies and publishers? (Bearing in mind that it's not in the interests of record companies for everyone to stop buying their music on CDs from record shops- in fact, it's quite the opposite.)
    • leviathan3k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3They could distribute *without* DRM, as they've done for decades on CD, and eMusic does now, and AoM does now. All of these solutions make money, and there is *no* reason to suppose that a non-DRM solution won't.

      Another problem with both of your examples is that the restrictions imposed on the users are entirely up to a corporation that is in full control. If Apple suddenly wants to restrict you to one machine, and no music on your iPods without paying a fee or some such, they are *well* with in their ability to do that.
  • UnnDunn, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I don't have any problem with DRM. DRM is just software, and anyone who is against "DRM" as a blanket concept needs to come back to the real world.

    What I DO have a problem with is badly-implemented, misused or abused DRM which doesn't respect individual consumers' rights and is only usable by large content owners. Prime examples of badly-implemented DRM would be the Sony rootkit fiasco and StarForce.

    What we should be fighting for is a so-called "digital consumer bill of rights" that allows DRM but also ensures that any media we acquire legally can be time/space/format shifted and repurposed for purposes allowed under the fair use doctrine, that the DRM implementation is transparent and respects the rights of computer owners to know and control what goes on their PCs, and that any party, large or small, can take advantage of the DRM to control distribution of their works.

    DRM is a reality and is as necessary to digital content distribution as copyright law is to meatspace content distribution. Fighting against it is a senseless, and ultimately fruitless exercise.

    DRM does do a number of beneficial things. Quite frankly, subscription music services and digital movie rental services are the bees knees as far as I am concerned, and those services would be impossible without DRM of some kind.
    • UnnDunn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It occurs to me that the Open Source Software community would be the perfect people to create a universal DRM system that would fulfil all the criteria I outlined above. Unfortunately since everyone in the OSS community views DRM as a taboo topic, I don't see this happening any time soon.
    • somerandomnerd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Not necessarily: http://www.digg.com/technology/Reasons_to_Love_Open-Source_DRM
    • UnnDunn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I, for one, hope that DRM scheme eventually takes off. Sun has its work cut out for itself though.
    • somerandomnerd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1When CD was introduced, copy methods weren't an affordable option, so it was irrelevant. Video has been protected for decades before DVDs.

      Yes, there are commercial outlets that distribute without DRM, but there's no reason to think that major record labels will make more money if they provide a genuine competitor to CDs.

      The internet changed the face of the market though, as it eliminated the cost of distribution, which also changes the job of the record company from the distribution to promotion (where most of the cost of "making" a record, and justification for the price, goes to.) Without their combined support, there's no way to provide a music player to properly compete with iTunes, because major label artists are what people want.

      As for whether Apple could change the restrictions of FairPlay to change the conditions with which music has already been sold/licenced- I think that fear's a bit daft. Do you think that would be legal?
  • jarrodtrainque, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I'm strongly against DRM only because I know what it is and the precedent it sets. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people out there (i.e., iTunes customers, NOT the digg community) have no idea what DRM is or how it's bad, and so they really don't care. That is, until it affects them directly.

    Case in point: A few weeks ago, a less technically-inclined co-worker of mine bought a new computer and needed some help setting up her ipod. When I sat down with her, she was shocked to find out that she couldn't simply transfer her music to a new machine, since she'd bought it outright. Turns out, she had purchased the music all right, but from iTunes (with DRM intact). Fortunately, I was able to get her music on her new machine, but at the cost of "authorizing" her machine.

    I suspect that as time goes by and more and more iTunes customers upgrade their hardware and run into this same sort of counter-intuitive scenario, DRM will get more public awareness. But by then, it may be too late.

    In addition to the work done by the EFF & others, I'd like to see a campaign that focuses on those casual users who have no idea they're getting screwed. Right now, the struggle against DRM seems too focused on the business/tech communities, who obviously have an incentive/agenda. Get this message out to the general public, the ones dropping $.99 after $.99, and then maybe we'll make some progress.
  • spaceman0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Lots of different views on what DRM is. Actually what DRM means to a customer ( whose getting DRMed in the a$$ ) doesn't mean the same thing to the company whose DRMing the customer in the ... - you get the point.
    As for the customers it means different things to different people ( some are ok with getting DRMed in the.. ), so I'll just give the other part.
    What DRM means to the providers: record companies Microsoft and other DRM superpowers.
    All customer are potential thieves. They WILL steal our stuff if given a chance.
    We sell the media (CDs, paper etc ) not the content. Customers are mistaken when they believe they are buying the content.
    All customers are also repeat customers. As the physical media is bound to disintegrate over time, they should be made to pay again. [Some companies take it too far: e.g. the basic minimum software that comes with my Sony ( Where did I hear that name again?) camcorder has to be purchased again ( @$40 ) if I lose/scratch the original cd.]
    Individuals are ignorant and too stupid to decide anyting intelligently, and should leave all the important decision making to us.
    We have to make more money in least amout of time and thats the last word. Nothing else matters. This is also sometimes rephrased as "let the market decide".
  • astrotrain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Whats going to happen is the RIAA and MPAA are going to have everything encoded with this DRM scumware, and nobody will buy it because it will not play or play in the users prefered chosen device they want to listen or watch it on because it is not DRM compatabile.
  • laplacian, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Haha, petitions and protests like these are completely naive and a waste of time. The production companies have the right to put whatever restrictions they want on their media. If you don't like the DRM restrictions on some particular media, then DON'T BUY IT. Patronize companies that produce media without DRM, or DRM restrictions that you find reasonable. It really couldn't be any more simple.
    • jarrodtrainque, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@laplacian

      RE: buying non-DRM media. You are 100% right. Whenever possible, folks should try to buy non-DRM media.

      This is actually much easier than one might think. Some record labels actually go out of their way to mark their content as having "no copyright protection". For example, K7 records:

      http://trainque.com/blog/2004/05/31/k7-records-supports-no-copy-protection/
      [yes, this is from my personal blog]

      What's the best thing about supporting non-copyright-restricting record/movie companies? You'll be exposed to some high(er)-quality stuff that's focused on art (and isn't all about turning a profit). Take for example, Warp Records' BLEEP music download site:

      http://www.bleep.com/

      No DRM, no marketing bull, just quality music at fair prices that benefit the artist (moreso than MPAA/RIAA-sponsored artists).
    • amphora, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I'm not only not going to buy it but I am going to participate in movements like Defective by Design to get as many people as possible not to buy it either. I am part of the market and I can help the market decide just as much as the next guy. Have fun soaking in your apathy and getting the world you deserve.
  • dtfinch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I don't buy products I don't like.
  • michaelstone, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2For every DRM'd file you guys don't buy, I'll buy more. I have never had a problem. I use iTunes and buy everything from the music store. I have 4 computers and 4 iPods. They all work. I have like 5 CD players. I've never burned a CD from iTunes that hasn't worked in all of them.

    Sure, my music makes me use iTunes, but unlike the average spontaneous consumer, I thought for a bit before purchasing a $300 iPod and what adds up to be probably over $1000 in iTunes songs. And I realized that iTunes, since it consistently is the best, is most likely to have the most music and also has the loosest guidelines. And the iPod, being the most used, is also my choice. In other words, I made a choice to be locked in, and if it lets me buy 99ยข songs instead of $15-$18 albums, I'll stick with it.
  • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Quit trying to take away other people's freedom to produce and market products the way they want. If you don't like it, don't buy it. If other people are fine with it and pay money to use DRM technology, then you lost and put up with it.

    "fair use" is an exception to copyright law that people are already abusing. With all the copyrighted material being traded on p2p networks, it's no wonder DRM exists. If you want to know why DRM exists, look to your peers.
    • amphora, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Many people buying DRM crippled products don't know the devil's bargain they are making. The Defective by Design campaign is intended to educate the public through the combined actions of technologists.

      What the hell is wrong with education?
    • azermuffin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Because they are not educating , they are just trying to use the government to regulate how they want to. Do Property Rights mean anything to you ?
    • amphora, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1In exactly what way is the FSF using the government?

      Also the term "Intellectual Property" is misleading. The term implies scarcity, which does not exist with ideas. The term conveys rights in the minds of most which if compared to real physical property would be considered ridiculous (such as the omnipresent restrictions on resale). The term also binds patents, trademarks and copyrights which should not be considered as a whole but individually.

      I prefer the term "intellectual rights" while others may prefer the term "monopolies on information."
  • sadsac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The free market should be the test for DRM. We are still in the early stages of DRM penetration. When DRM becomes truly entrenched, and if consumers at large react negatively, the market will adjust or consumers will go away.

    iTunes is not a good example of the restrictions of DRM because of the "burn CD" loophole. The consumer is still in full control because they can burn to a CD and transfer content to the device of their choice.

    It will take extreme cases of DRM where consumers lose control and there are no loopholes. When people find that they can't record the TV programs they would like on their DVR, or if their DVR starts deleting programs after a certain number of days, they make choose not to buy content with such restrictions and the market should work to reduce the DRM.

    The anti-circumvention law in the DMCA is the larger policy problem. Market forces will have no impact on this. Consumers should be able use products how they like. Just as people should lawfully be able to buy a car and change anything they like on it to better suit their needs, it also should not be illegal to use digital content privately however one sees fit - and if DRM gets in the way, it should not be unlawful to go around it.



  • sophiaperennis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The best weapon against DRM is choice. My choice is to not buy DRM'ed content. Same goes for DRM-enabled hardware that somehow tells me, when / where / how I am allowed to play my licensed content.

    The trick the manufacturers of content and hardware are playing, is that they fool everyone by portraying this to be a battle against piracy and protecting the copyrights... WRONG! This is a battle for market-share, so they can license their DRM technology / DRM'ed content to others, and restrict a person to particular hardware that is compatible.
  • whitesnow158, on 10/24/2007, -0/+0No doubt as a reaction to all the bad press he's been giving record labels, Universal/Interscope has relieved Trent Reznor of his contractual duties.
    http://mp3away.com/letters-mp3-o/
    http://mp3away.com/letters-mp3-p/
    http://mp3away.com/letters-mp3-q/
    http://mp3away.com/letters-mp3-r/
    http://mp3away.com/letters-mp3-s/
    http://mp3away.com/letters-mp3-t/
    http://mp3away.com/letters-mp3-u/
    http://mp3away.com/letters-mp3-v/
    http://mp3away.com/letters-mp3-w/
    http://mp3away.com/letters-mp3-x/
    http://mp3away.com/letters-mp3-y/
    http://mp3away.com/letters-mp3-z/
    http://mp3away.com/letters-mp3-dig/
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.