Apple's DRM Is Bad For Consumers and Business 364
BoredStiff writes "Cory Doctorow, noted sci-fi writer and Boing Boing editor, marshals a strong argument against digital rights management in a recent InformationWeek article. His assertion is that there's no good DRM and that Apple's copy-protection technology makes media companies into its servants. Other copy-protection technologies, like Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, are just as bad."
Conflicted Feelings (Score:5, Interesting)
However, the concept of rental clashes with the nature of the online and digital world. Everything that exists can be copied in exact form. You can't return data - you have a copy, not the original. The way I see it there are two options, the concept of rental can be preserved artificially with the introduction of DRM, or it can be abandoned in favor of purchases.
As a consumer I don't have a problem with the general idea of DRM on a rental - my fair use rights aren't being violated, because I don't have the right to backup, timeshift, or format shift rentals to begin with (unlike media I own, for which any DRM is intolerable). Where the problem occurs is the proprietary nature of DRM. At best, the rental DRM would be an "Open Standard" meaning anyone who pays RAND* patent fees and signs an NDA will be allowed to implement a device, and be given keys (specific to them) to decode the data. Then I could buy online rental devices or software from any number of manufactures, and it would be guaranteed to work with any number of online rental stores. This is similar to the legal workings of DVDs, Blueray, WMV. At the worst you have proprietary technologies, where each company has it's own format and player, like with Apple or DVIX (the first one). In both cases there will never be an open source player - the best we could hope for is something like the new Real Player that has an open source core with proprietary plug-ins. Even that is unlikely, as the movie industry is demanding end-to-end security (HDMI, Trusted Computing) which an open source operating system would not provide.
In the other option, the internet utopia dream was that the price of media would drop to the point of making rental unnecessary and removing the allure of piracy from the general public. The media industries are strongly opposed to this model of the future, and the only way it will ever happen is if independent media producers embrace it with success, and eventually put the current media companies out of business. This is also unlikely given the weight that the media companies have in government. Therfore, media purchases will also be hindered with DRM for the conceivable future, and will continue to be priced at traditional rates.
So given DRM on rental verses DRM on purchase, I definitely prefer the previous, but there is another potential risk with DRM rental and it is a biggy. The media companies have shown themselves very fond of the idea of DRM rental, as seen with Napster. They like the model where people don't own copies of media, but instead just subscribe to services that provide them. If too many people embrace these services, we could end up in a situation where everything is locked up. We continue to hear stories about how the original archive copies of important cultural media is being lost due to the extreme length of copyright, and the mismanagement of the copyright holders (Dr Who, classic films). But in most of those cases, at least lower quality copies exist in the form of consumer media. However, if we can no longer record broadcast media, and there are no purchased copies of media, the copyright holders will be the only ones capable of preserving the records of our popular culture. Time and time again they show themselves inept at doing so.
Anyway, I plan on sticking to buying CD's and renting locally for as long as those options exist, and continue to support those independent producers who treat their customers with respect. I'll keep trying to inform my representatives about the issues. But I'm not optimistic. We'll see what happens.
* For the uninitiated:
RAND = Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory
NDA = Non-Disclosure Agreement
To go foward should we go back? (Score:2, Interesting)
People are waking up... (Score:5, Interesting)
Many other people are waking up to the fact that DRM is shorthand for "you really don't own this piece of music you paid $1 for, and that you can't share it, or copy it, or use it on a different computer." People, and the information they rely and enjoy, desire true freedom.
Re:This guy must be a slashdot reader... (Score:4, Interesting)
There is no such thing as "the production of music only profitable through DRM". I believe, as do many anti-DRM activists, that the average person is more than willing to pay a fair price for anything they want or need, they do not need to be forced to do the right thing.
The problem is that the media giants have decided that they want more than a fair price for their product, so many people look elsewhere to get the things they want. This then results in the media giants deciding that they need to protect their products from theft... so they spend an ungodly amount of money developing and deploying ineffective technologies that do nothing but further alienate their customers while increasing their overhead. Now they have fewer customers, lower profit margins, and more theft occuring... so what do they do, the same stupid thing all over again!
What needs to happen is that these media giants need to start TRUSTING THEIR CUSTOMERS!!! We are in a web of distrust... we don't trust them, and they don't trust us. If an entertainer were to get most of the proceeds from their work, while the record company took a fair share, we could trust them. The cost of their wares would drop and most of us would buy the stuff without thought. But $20 for a CD of music I don't care much for, by an artist who I know only get's pennies of my money. It's bullshit. I would rather steal the music and send the artist a dollar or two.
Fortunately I don't like music, so I don't bother stealing it... talk radio is more entertaining.
Re:Doctorow is an idiot (Score:4, Interesting)
The guy needs to try a spell in the real world. And his novels SUCK. No wonder he has no need for DRM.
How is he not in the real world? He's practicing what he preaches. And no his books don't suck. I know that popularity doesn't equate to quality, but if an author can give away his books and still make money selling them, it should be obvious that he's doing something right.
Re:To go foward should we go back? (Score:3, Interesting)
Pity the conglomerates, servants to Apple?! (Score:1, Interesting)
pity the poor media conglomerates, whose shareholder- and executive-bonus-driven business model determine which artists we will hear, and consigns the rest to obscurity.
Apple's entry into music distribution if anything has somewhat leveled the playing field and has a tendency (if only slightly) to keep the old-line media companies honest. Now they have competition. Apple is "David" and Warner and the traditional giants are "Goliath" here.
For the sake of what WE get to hear... and for the artists out there who may or may not be able to prosper as artists, depending purely on business and monetary factors outside their control... we want a David to go up against that Goliath.
There would be no legal online distribution of music without some kind of DRM. The question is how to make it as user-friendly and the least onerous possible. Perfection has not been attained. Lots of people will only think it's perfect when the music literally costs nothing. That is not a winning or acceptable solution. So let's talk within the scope of what will be acceptably beneficial, or at least spread the costs around fairly, to the audience, the artist and to a middleman where one is necessary.
Re:Your first mistake (Score:1, Interesting)
The day that eMusic offers an a la carte purchasing option is the day that I become a devoted eMusic customer. For now I will stick with iTMS.
Ummm.....guys? (Score:2, Interesting)
But, the thing that caught my eye was this statement; The DMCA makes it a crime to circumvent "effective means of access control." To me, the key word, there, is effective . As far as I'm concerned, if I can circumvent it, it isn't effective, Q.E.D.. Ok, I'm a bit of a geek, or I probably wouldn't be here, right? But I'm no bigtime cracker, and there are plenty of security measures I can't circumvent. I consider those measures to be "effective". Anything else seems to be fair game, according to that act. I suspect most judges would agree, if it were explained that way. At worst, it would depend on the outcome of one heck of a battle over the definition of the word "effective".
Re:Conflicted Feelings (Score:3, Interesting)
No, that's not how it works. You can engage in fair uses all the time, regardless of whether you own a copy, rent a copy, or don't have a copy at all. Fair use is not contingent on ownership. Rather, it's contingent on the circumstances involved. For example, it is entirely possible that if Alice tried to engage in a particular use whilst owning a copy, that it would be unfair, while if Bob tried to engage in the same use, not owning a copy, that it would be fair. Other factors are what's key. Depending on the use in question, ownership might be a relevant factor, but it is not the only one or the most important one.
Apple's DRM work-around (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:People are waking up... (Score:4, Interesting)
Return to the question of a PDF of my book. No doubt, you would look at downloading that across a P2P network exactly the same way, regardless of whether or not you were going to read it once, or read it daily. Is a Bible different because many people crack it open every day? Using your argument, any fixed document that's read and re-read regularly would be purchased exactly once.
This is the same "change the game so my argument holds water" technique that Cory uses all the time. It's the kind of thing that makes it impossible to have a reasonable discussion with him, because he bases his position on a proposition that isn't relevant. Unfortunately, most people don't stop him at that point, because he's always carrying the banner of "information wants to be free," and pretending to be Thomas Jefferson.
Ultimately, Cory wants to "possess" music (and other electronic data that is similarly protected) without paying the content creator for their work and he wants to get away with it. Whether you call it stealing or something altruistic, he wants the benefit without cost, and without renumeration to the artist or legitimate owner of publication/distribution rights. It's as simple as that.
Tim
P.S. Your argument also suggests that there is no value in owning books. I own them specifically so I can go back and re-read them when I choose to, and not when they're available at the public library. I buy music (principally CD's) for the same purpose. My gripe with online music is that the license doesn't follow the physical model that a CD allows.
Re:Just Apple? (Score:1, Interesting)
You've got a couple of options. If your motherboard is fried, then you will probably want to replace it anyway, right? If your hard drive is still fine (i.e. you didn't kick the whole damn thing out the window in a fit of rage) then your music is still fine. When you replace the motherboard, you'll probably need to reinstall Windows. It often gets very confused if the hardware changes. But, before you do that, have your friendly neighborhood geeky friend come over, pull out your hard drive, copy your music files to another safe location -- for example, you could just burn the files themselves to a CD.
Once you've got your computer back up and running, you'll want to reinstall Windows, reinstall iTunes, and then copy your music back onto your PC. Just try to play any of your iTunes music, and iTunes will ask you to authorize your computer. Type your username and password, and hey presto! Your music will play again. Apple keeps everything you need to unencrypt and play back your music on their own servers. When you authorize your computer, Apple sends you the bits you need to play your music back.
By the way, if you hadn't synced your iPod using the music in your girlfiend's copy of iTunes, you would have been able to avoid some of this frustration. Once you have your computer back up and running, there are tools out there that can transfer your music from your iPod back onto your computer. It is a good idea to keep a backup of the music you buy from iTunes, just because it is frustrating if one of them dies. I generally keep all of my music on both my desktop and my laptop. That way, if one dies, the other still has a usable copy of the music. If you don't have two computers, don't sweat it. Just make sure you keep your music on your iPod, and you can always recover it later.
Re:Ideas CAN'T be stolen! (Score:2, Interesting)
The sort version: By the time you have the chance to buy or steal a CD, the artist and all the technical people you mention above have already been paid for the performance recorded on that CD, and most probably won't be paid for it again no matter how well it sells.
The long version:
As a software engineer the way my work is treated isn't that different legally or culturally from the way that music or movies are treated and I doubt the argument you use above is any more valid for music than it is for software. When I write software I only get paid once for my time and all those 'technical people' you mentioned probably also only get paid once as well. Since I have already been paid by the time anything I work on can be bought or stolen (and those 'technical people' have probably also already been paid by the time the CD is finished) it is dishonest to say that illegally copying my product deprives me of compensation and I find it equally unlikely that copying a recorded song dprives anyone directly involved in the recording of that song of compensation.
Also, the statement "Just as if they were performing live" rings hollow. Concert tickets and a CD don't cost the same amount. A shrink wrapped product doesn't cost the same amount as hiring a team of software developers to make the same product for you from scratch. They aren't the same, considering that the majority of the people directly involved in the performance recorded on the CD have probably already been paid for that performance the one and only time, they are barely even related.
Lastly, just because something takes effort to develop doesn't mean it isn't an idea. Lots of work has gone into the idea of object oriented programming, or the idea of relativity, and they are even more clearly ideas than a recorded song in that they lack any specific physical or sensory form. (I'll actually grant you that a recorded song might not qualify as an idea.)
You can call me greedy if you want, but remember I stand to lose exactly as much from software piracy as most analogous people in the music industry stand to lose from music piracy, which from my perspective is: Nothing. Piracy, even F/OSS and the creative commons may have other effects on software, music, and the market in general both good and bad, and I'd be happy to talk about that if you want, but as a 'content producer' I have a real problem with people complaining piracy deprives 'content producers' of payment, in my experience that's almost never true.
Re:Your first mistake (Score:3, Interesting)
Capitalism does not confer any rights beyond that of individuals being able to own property (capital) which is theirs to do with as they wish, within confines that the capitalist system imposes by its nature, so owning a gun for example does not mean one is free to shoot anything or anyone, because damaging or destroying the property of others infringes on their rights as owners (and this includes their lives and bits of their bodies, which they also own). No form of capital has any intrinsic value beyond what others are willing to pay for it, and that includes work, which is simply another form of capital -- the only "right" a worker has under a capitalist system is therefore to receive the amount of capital from others that they're willing to exchange for that work, or not doing it at all, in which case no capital exchange takes place (i.e. you get nothing).
What then would be the role of copyrights under a capitalist system? Actually, none at all, because they use the threat of force to prevent the natural tendency of markets to place less value on desirable commodities that are scarce than equally desirable ones which are plentiful. Why something is plentiful has no relevance, only the fact that it is, and using non-market forces to change this is profoundly anti-capitalist, while measures such as DRM that make it more technically more difficult difficult for others to "manufacture" an equivalent would be quite acceptable.
Note that patents are equally anti-capitalist because they again use non-market forces to maintain a temporary artificial monopoly. Trademarks on the other hand are something that serves to identify market entities, so infringing on them would be an attempt to artificially manipulate markets by pretending to be someone or something else instead of simply releasing one's own product or service that competes on its own merits (doing what IBM does better than them is fine, but pretending to be IBM isn't).
All of the above makes it rather ironic that the so-called capitalist US is determined to force countries like China and Russia to adopt "IP" protection measures that are intended to prevent that most capitalist of phenomena, i.e. home-grown entrepreneurs producing easily manufactured products more cheaply than overseas competitors!