What is Digg?36 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26Here's a 2-second guide to opposing DRM:
1. Buy non-DRM products.
2. Don't share them after you buy them.
3. Leave everyone else alone. - CamperBob, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11"Having no content protection at all is NOT the answer."
The problem is that, at least with regard to US law, DRM violates the Constitutional intent behind copyright legislation. Our constitution states, very clearly, that Congress is authorized to provide copyright protection "for a limited time." DRM that does not include sunset technology to disable itself after the expiration of the copyright protection period is, therefore, blatantly unconstitutional. Essentially, content owners are using DRM to grant themselves perpetual copyrights.
It isn't necessary (or even desirable) to mix arguments involving DRM and "fair use." Fair use isn't a "right," per se, only a defense against infringement charges. Instead, the best way to fight DRM in general and the DMCA in particular is by pointing out that Congress is not authorized to grant perpetual copyrights. Eventually the courts should catch on. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9The entire point of copyright is to allow creators to dictate how their works are disseminated. Of course, consumers have fair-use rights as well, like the right to make backup copies, or the right to create copies of music for their home and car.
I used to be vehemently opposed to copy-protected CDs and on-line music stores like iTunes because of two reasons: 1. Anything other than plain mp3 files are (or used to be) completely useless to me. 2. I collect (or used to collect) CDs and am proud of my collection.
While I'm still absolutely against copy-protected CDs (never bought one, never will) I've warmed to on-line music stores provided that they allow me to exercise my fair-use rights. It's easy to bash DRM outright, but the record companies have been ***** on their customers for decades. In the olden days, people were forced to buy complete albums at inflated prices even though they only wanted a couple of songs. On top of that, people were forced to buy these albums on a fragile medium that scratched or wore out easily.
Now people can shop from their homes, buy only the tracks they want, at a fixed 99c price, and it's never been easier to burn your own CDs from these tracks, which, I'll remind, is the only other medium that this stuff is available on. Sure, music is just software now, and it becomes more of a hassle to switch this music to another platform (i.e. people are forced to exercise their fair use rights and burn to CD in order to switch platforms) but it's a small price to pay compared to the ***** people have had to put up with in the past.
I'd love it if all music was free and came on standard mp3 -- I think people would still find a way to support their favorite musicians who are getting screwed either way -- but the reality is that copyright isn't going to go away any time soon.
- CamperBob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"He (Lessig) talks about people as if they were some collective whose rights supercede the rights of individuals to their work."
What strange ideas you seem to have. The Constitutional language that authorizes copyright protection is geared *precisely* towards ensuring that a protected work eventually becomes available to the public domain. - CamperBob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7See my comment above. Companies should certainly be permitted to use any DRM scheme they can come up with, as long as its terms and enforcement mechanisms are disclosed to the consumer. However, companies should have to decide whether they want DRM or copyright protection. Under the US constitution, they can't have both.
- tehgooch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I don't like DRM, but I loathe forcing a company to not use it.
- smokypotion, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Here's the 5 seconds version:
DRM annoys you by preventing you from using content the way you want to.
The creation of monopolies, privacy violations, and additional economic cost to manufacturers and consumers are all just nasty side effects of an already nasty problem. - bdwoolman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The idea of copyright was to give creators a head start before big institutions could profit from their work gratis. Now copyright is co-opted by big institutions to hog the creative landscape and stifle innovation. This is the opposite of the intention of the law, which is to encourage innovation by protecting NEW ideas...not old ones.. It is time for Micky to retire into the culture. How long can you milk a mouse? I guess as long as you can bribe congress to feed him cheese.
- ThatsUnpossible, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Which is why we don't live in a democracy, we live in a Republic.
Fear the tyranny of the majority. - Altotus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"He talks about people as if they were some collective whose rights supercede the rights of individuals to their work."
In fact, that's the intent of copyright and patent law. To secure for a limited time certain rights to their creator with the promise that whatsoever they create passes to the public. Originally in the US, it was 14 years for copyright, and 10 for patents. Now, patents last for 20 years, and copyrights average about 115 years.
DRM, as popularly implemented, violates traditional copyright law in that it prevents works from passing into the public domain (assuming the DRM works or is illegal to circumvent). DRM mechanisms also tend to enforce usage/access rules that are outside the scope of copyright (which, is quite specifically limited to the act of producing a "copy" of something or "performing" something). If DRM, for instance, prevents playback of media on a particular device whereas you have purchased the right to have a copy of the content, then it's enforcing rules outside the realm of copyright (that particular use case having long since been settled as a fair use). One thing that few people understand is that copyright does NOT protect one's ability to capitalize on their work -- that's not a right provided by copyright law even if it's an incentive for some.
DRM is really a dumb idea. It's not truly effective as a technical measure, and implementation requires significant capital layout, patent licensing, and ultimately provides nothing but a nuisance to the consumer. In fact, the worst aspect of DRM from a commercial stand-point is that it makes the non-DRM media more desirable and more valuable than the DRM content. An industry that provides only DRM content has placed itself, intentionally, at a market disadvantage -- it's a self-marginalizing behavior.
Not that copyright holders ought not get protection under copyright law -- they certainly should, but DRM (as it exists today) is a very expensive approach that is known to alienate the consumer. If you want to make money off a work, it's a poor choice. From the standpoint of the state, of course, it's an abuse of the system that violates the terms under which the copyright was granted (in fact, one could argue that adding DRM to content effectively removes the copyright on it for that reason).
Just because Lessig supports a traditional view of copyright law doesn't make him a socialist. - tehgooch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3http://www.democracyisnotfreedom.com/
- MechaFenris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I too loathe government interference, but on both sides of the issue...
DRM is a problem in search of a solution. It does nothing to stop piracy, as it is claimed to be used for, and it goes entirely too far in enforcing how copyright holders (not necessarily creators) can exert their influence on the buyers of their works. What DRM is, under the surface, is the inherent desire by the big corporations to tell you how, when, and where you can view, listen, or use their content. In a sense, their ideal world would be set up to obtain revenue even if you whistled a song you heard in the elevator. Their entire motivation is greed. It has nothing to do with preventing infringement (on the criminal scale of things like counterfeiting and such), and any indications to the contrary make for really unconvincing lies. Like Region-coding DVDs....which i consider DRM like any other...allows in a global economy the same benefits studios enjoyed when they could segment disconnected markets and adjust revenue accordingly in order to maximize profiteering.
Something I loathe more than DRM is the entertainment industry's efforts to codify it and turn it into a government mandate. That is disturbing, and with the Supreme Court severely lax in reining in the Congress when it arbitrarily raises the length of time a copyrighted work can remain out of the public domain, we have much to worry about in terms of our freedoms and fair use at the hands of greedy corporations and their lapdogs in Congress and the White House.
Frankly, it's nauseating. ;) - sneakerelph, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The thing about DRM, is its not stopping piracy. Does the **AA really think that piracy is being slowed down because of DRM? I mean, if you want to pirate some music, you aren't stopped because the iTMS is offereing DRM'd music. You'll just go to LimeWire like everyone else and get non DRM'd songs.
Piracy is not slowed by DRM, because people who buy their music aren't sharing it. As long as there is an un-DRM'd version available anywhere, DRM does nothing. - jasontromm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Consumers can force a company not to use DRM, by not buying anything from them.
- vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2After self replicating nano-bots and self replicating AI is able to create anything at no cost with unlimited quanities, then yes... I'd say everything is free. Of course the problem is that there won't be a need for humans at that point. Much less a system of Capitalism.
Although unless you plan on being alive by 2045... Its a moot point. - lidflipper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Free, easy to use, open source DRM will be the end of the major labels. It will allow artists to control the price and availability of their work. DRM = Good, it's more about who controls the DRM in question.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Both direct attacks on Apple's business model even though they chose a fictional example casting Sony as the bad guy.
"Anti-competitiveness: Depending on the implementation, DRM may allow only compatible digital material to play on a given piece of a technology. In other words, to play a Sony CD, you would need to have a Sony player, and non-Sony CDs would require their own separate players. In this scenario, DRM becomes a back door entrance to monopoly. It would prove a detriment to second tier hardware manufacturers unless they could license a major manufacturer's DRM technologies. Even more importantly, it would literally mean the end of free software.
#
Industry Standards: So far, no universally agreed-upon standard for DRM exists. Instead, each manufacturer sets its own standards. To see why this situation is undesirable, you only need to imagine the chaos if car manufacturers could set their own crash safety standards. Not only would people waste endless time shopping around for compatibility, but consumer protection would be impossible. There's a reason why, in other industries, standards are set by consultation and overseen by government agencies -- it's the only way to ensure that the standards are not based entirely on self-interest. If DRM standards were regulated, we might hope that, if DRM were not banned, it would at least be restricted to mild forms that did not violate existing copyright and privacy legislation. The way things are, DRM sets an alarming precedence for other industries by placing the interests of a few manufacturers above the public good." - MrAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That argument being so pervasive is what makes me feel bad for the artists/producers. You've got a bunch of tech guys who come by with a swirling magic potion they say will let you reclaim your right to control your work... but honestly, they've GOT to know they can't do that. So they charge YOU, and you either eat the investment or pass it on to your fans. And the kicker is, all it does is interfere with their ability to watch or read or listen to the things they've paid you for. The people who CAN bypass this stuff, WILL. I'm starting to think the victims in all this are the artists who end up falling for it. Someone should let them know they're being taken by digital snake oil salesmen.
- tehgooch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I should say that copyrights are only helping their owner the same way a monopoly only helps that company...
- schmichael, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No drm music: http://www.emusic.com
The only thing record labels listen to is cold hard cash. So open up your wallets and buy some drm-free mp3s. - jameshales, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Is there really any DRM that is not obtrusive or cumbersome? I agree that people should be able to assert their rights over their creations, through technological means if necessary, but they shouldn't restrict legitimate users. DRM looks like it will become increasingly restrictive over users, and it will probably only restrict legitimate users, because illigitimate users won't be using DRM-protected content (or will be circumventing it).
- smokypotion, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"I do believe that content providers have a right to protect their content--but in a way that protects fair use and isn't obtrusive or cumbersome."
I saw a while back some music being offered in protected wma format, which was relatively generous as far as DRM goes in terms of letting people transfer their music to portable music players and audio CD burning. But there were still some major problems:
1. I would never be able to play the music on my iPod in full quality (although I could circumvent the DRM by ripping a burned audio CD, which defeats the purpose of the DRM)
2. There is no guarantee the DRM would become obsolete and unsupported on new technology, rendering useless the music collection I built.
The problems were inherent with the DRM itself, not the way the DRM was implemented. - ratrip, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"He talks about people as if they were some collective whose rights supercede the rights of individuals to their work."
Which is true. It is the essential principal behind democracy. The opinion of the individual is inferior to that of the masses, as the masses have more power to dictate than the individual.
As an individual, you and I might not like it, but it is the cold reality of our species. Personal strength is subordinate to the power of the combined strengths in a group. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes, "it is the essential principal behind democracy." It is the essential principal that renders it worthless on its own. We should be thankful every day we don't live in one.
- strebormj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I have no objection to DRM in theory. However, it's worth noting that the inital mass-sharing of files was based on ripping files from CDs. The CD locked people into a format that prevented people from using their purchased music as they liked on their own devices. File-sharing services made sharing those ripped files easy.
Providing a DRM alternative was supposed to stem the tide of ripped songs being shared. However, as others have pointed out, the new system locks you into a particular, non-portable, non-permanent service and DRM format, preventing you from being able to use your file as you would like on your own devices; in order to use the file on your own devices, you have to burn it to a CD, and, um, rip it off. Which is exactly what you were doing before.
That is, the DRM format didn't really change anything. It just added an extra step, and made the music unpurchasable to the, oh, hundreds of millions of people who don't want to use a particular service, either because they already have accounts with multiple other services, or because it's not supported on their computer, or they don't like the selection or GUI, or whatever.
In the end, regardless of the legal issues, current DRM is still out of line with how people use the music they buy. It's a fart in a mitten, if you will. - dkm201, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Isn't this digg, where are all the me-me torrenty types whining about how everything should be immediately free?
Oh wait, here they come to mod me down! - bdpf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Something to wonder about.
I was reading the article on-line and clicked on a hot link to "DECSS."
While reading this new article, I miss clicked and lost it.
( I don't know if I spelled the hot link correctly.)
Went back to dig article, after restarting dig, and the hot link was gone from the article.
I tried twice to find it again. Did Big Brother edit the article?
My cd-roms don't work like they use to. I can no longer watch a movie on the computer, like I once did. Same cd does not work. Also have problems with cd-roms installing programs form original disks.
Now why would they remove a hot link?
bdpf - nufoto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Just another Apple iPod Bash Fest: "Cory Doctrow's "Microsoft Research DRM Talk"" gee I really wonder who's behind the the Defective By Design campaign?? just like political party's get hijacked by special interest groups...Same here!
They only seem to target Apple .....even though DRM serves Record Companies. they don't target those Companies??? ..how about attacking the RIAA?? - bdpf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Here is where the hot link took me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeCSS
bdpf - Ciebergasm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Great article. This is something I plan to bookmark and give to everyone who asks why I am against DRM. There are many alternatives out there- such as license protections, that may help alleviate the cause.
I believe that stopping all piracy is ultimately impossible, and attempting to do so only harms the user. While I don't condone companies for taking reasonable measures to prevent their intellectual property from being unrightfuly copied, there should be limits where customer satisfaction is put in front of safeguards against piracy. DRM is a perfect example of putting safeguards in front of customers.
Ultimately technology such as DRM is like dropping an atom bomb in NYC to stop gang violence. - Backwards2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1f you oppose DRM, at least be honest with the world. You are for taking away the legal rights of artists to control their work that is granted by the constitution. If you make the argument that DRM is flawed, think about how flawed your solution is..... taking away their legal rights through technological means.
- tehgooch, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Copyrights aren't helping anyone anyway.
- mitrovarr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"The entire point of copyright is to allow creators to dictate how their works are disseminated."
Actually, NO, that is not at all the point. The point of copyright law is not to protect copyright holders, it is to provide an incentive for them to create content that will eventually become public domain by creating a temporary artificial monopoly for them. DRM and the ridiculous extensions of the length of copyrights have completely corrupted this system until it is actually worse than nothing, because almost nothing enters the public domain (except that which is created especially for it.) So now copyright functions in exactly the opposite of the way it was originally intended. DRM just makes it worse. - JackHererUK, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0It seems to miss out the most obvious argument against DRM, it doesn't work. The record companies say that DRM is required in order to prevent their copyright works being illegally copied and distributed yet all the music on ITMS is freely available on file sharing networks.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4Lessig spouts the same socialist rhetoric that we've come to know and love since Marx. He talks about people as if they were some collective whose rights supercede the rights of individuals to their work.
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=infotech&sc=&id=14505&pg=6 - raz3000, on 10/12/2007, -15/+8A superb bullet-format article that outlines the anti-DRM cause. However, I do believe that content providers have a right to protect their content--but in a way that protects fair use and isn't obtrusive or cumbersome. DRM opponents always shoot down every content protection scheme that comes along but rarely suggest practical alternatives. Having no content protection at all is NOT the answer.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is