The Day Against DRM 320
Qubit writes, "DefectiveByDesign.org, a campaign by the Free Software Foundation, is making Oct 3rd a Day Against DRM: 'Defeating DRM is all about awareness. The direct actions that we have taken are all about this. Today we are asking you to let the people around you know that DRM is bad for our society. Let's create space for the debate. Do we want handcuffs and locks on art and knowledge? As our friends at Disney recognize, if there is this debate, we will have won.'" Bayboy adds an article from eWeek mentioning that members of DefectiveByDesign.org are going to descend on flagship Apple stores in New York and London to protest the company's embrace of DRM. And Another AC writes, "In honor of the Day Against DRM, DreamHost has released a new service called Files Forever (for Dreamhost customers only during beta) This seems to be basically an iTunes Music Store that anybody can sell any sort of files through... as long as they have no DRM. Dreamhost handles all the payment processing and stores the file forever, offering unlimited re-downloads to end users who buy files through the service. When somebody buys a file they're even allowed to 'loan' it to others for free!"
october 3rd (Score:2, Informative)
Too late. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Why Apple? (Score:3, Informative)
There's a very good reason for this.
How many people own iPods? How many people have used the iTunes music store? Lots. Even people who don't have iPods know what they are, and lots are probably planning to buy one.
Now, how many people have Sony music players with Sony's DRM? Anyone? Anyone? Offhand, I couldn't even tell you if Sony has any MP3 players, let alone what kinds they have or what they're called. And I've been looking into buying an MP3 player recently, so it's not like I'm blissfully unaware. No one cares about Sony any more. Sure, their DRM may be "worse" than Apple's, but it doesn't matter because they're so unimportant.
DFD demonstrating against Sony would be like someone demonstrating against Peugot in the US because they think their cars are bad for some reason. No one here would care, because no one buys those cars here.
Re:Would some one please explain... (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the problem: copyrights are a limited monopoly offered by the government as one half of a bargain with creators. The other half of the bargain lies in the creator's agreement that the protected content will become available to the public domain when the copyright term expires.
DRM allows publishers to evade their half of the copyright bargain. In particular, the DMCA anti-circumvention law in the US is unconstitutional because it does not require publishers to disable their DRM protection, or arrange for it to disable itself, upon the expiration of copyright protection. That means that the DMCA explicitly sanctions perpetual copyright protection... a clear violation of both the letter and intent of the Constitution's clause that authorizes that protection in the first place. With a combination of traditional copyright law and hypothetical DRM technology that remains unbreakable after copyright expiration, a publisher will enjoy an unlimited monopoly at the public's expense.
But do they not have a right to protect their intellectual property? Are the detractors of DRM against the concept of intellectual property altogether?
Some are against the whole concept of IP, but not being an ideologue, I can't speak for them. I do, however, believe that publishers and creators should have to choose between self-enforced protection (DRM) and government-enforced protection (copyright law). They should not be able to leverage both at the same time, because the two legal concepts of DRM and the "copyright bargain" are diametrically opposed to each other.
Re:Would some one please explain... (Score:5, Informative)
I love copyright. I disagree with some of the details of implementation (In my dream world copyright would last 14 years with an optional 14 year renewal), but I love the core idea. A government granted short term monopoly seems like a good way to encourage creation.
However, I loathe DRM. A few highlights:
DRM makes media players more expensive: Adding DRM support to hardware or software isn't free. Implementating a device without DRM support would be cheaper that implementing one with. You, the consumer, pay more for a device that intentionally does less.
DRM must be combined with draconian laws to be effective: "Trying to make bits uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet." (Bruce Schneier) You've given me the data and the software or hardware to play the data. All the pieces are in my hands. DRM must be breakable. So to make it effective, you need laws that make it illegal to distribute implementations that break DRM. This means source code that breaks DRM must be illegal. As source code is a form of speech, we have laws that try to limit free speech to protect a business model. That's never acceptable in my book.
DRM is about making things you purchase distrust you: This is inherent to the system. This is morally repugnant. Your DVD player assumes you're trying to make bootleg copies, so it applies MacroVision to the output. The new video game you installed assumes you're trying to play a bootleg copy, so it installs low-level drivers into your system to monitor what you do. I paid money for these things, why do they serve an external company more than me?
DRM must infringe on fair use: The only DRM system that doesn't infringe on fair use is Microsoft's "Please don't make illegal copies" label printed on the CDs of some of their products. Fair use is subtle and non-obvious, no piece of electronics or software can be perfectly correct. If you err on the side of freedom, you are also creating a loophole for illegal use. You can either give people the ability to legally sample short segements of high definition video for review purposes or you can make it harder to make bootleg copies. You can give people the ability to legally format shift movies and music or you can make it harder to spread copies online.
Re:Why Apple? why not (Score:1, Informative)
Their 5 computer limit can be reached by the same computer.
First of all, very few people have to replace a hard drive five times. Second of all, nobody I'm aware of has EVER had to replace it five times in a single year. With the iTunes Store, you get one "wipe" of your authorizations per year.
From http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=930 14 [apple.com]:
Plus, what are backups to non computer people? Doesn't the computer keep a backup of all my files after I format/reinstall/ get my computer back from Apple?
A CD getting scratched/sat upon/baked in the sun or a hard drive failure: guess which happens more frequently for the average consumer? Hint: it's not the hard drive failure. When you buy a CD, does the music store make a backup of that for you? Will they give you a free replacement if it gets broken? Didn't think so. They don't even warn you to make a backup. At least the iTunes store warns you to make a backup of your music as soon as you buy something; whether you actually do so or not is your decision.
If I bought a CD I can rip it as many times, and in what ever format I choose.
Yup, and if you buy a song from the iTunes Store, you can burn it to a CD-R, then rip it as many times and into whatever format you choose.
Quit spreading your FUD.
Re:Would some one please explain... (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use [wikipedia.org]
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html [copyright.gov]
Fair use gives you some rights over copyrighted material even if the author does not want you to have it. DRM prevents you from exercising your legal rights.
Re:Would some one please explain... (Score:3, Informative)
No, it isn't! The copyright owner does not in general have any say over how you use the work. That includes playing it on any player you want to. No, they don't get a say in that. Yes, you can have more fun with the copyrighted work than the owner wanted to allow you. That isn't "fair use", it's just use. Use is not covered by copyright.
You will notice that the line you quote says that "fair use is any copying of copyrighted material" and then goes on to list things that do in some way involve copying and making derivative works of a copyrighted act which would normally be prohibited. It doesn't list "having more fun with the copyright work than the owner wanted" because that has nothing to do with copyright and hence fair use. So you're right it isn't a good example of fair use, but it is also not a good example of something the copyright holder has the right to prohibit.
To be clear, there are three classes of "uses":
1) Those prohibited by copyright, such as distributing copies or making derivative works or public performances.
2) Those which are nominally prohibited by copyright, but exempted under "fair use" clauses.
3) Those which are not prohibited by copyright and thus do not need to be exempted by fair use.
The problem with DRM is that in the name of protecting 1, it prohibits both 2 and 3.
Of course the ones who are heavily invested in DRM see this as a feature. It allows them to enforce whatever crazy restrictions they want, like limiting the number of times you can listen to a song or charging you rent for songs where they can stop you from listening to the songs if you stop paying, but they are not given the right to create those restrictions based on copyright law. However because DRM enforces copyright law, and DRM also enforces these other restrictions, it creates the illusion in peoples' minds, like yours, that these are all covered by copyright law.
Well, they're not. Look it up. You will not find anything in copyright law empowering copyright owners to limit the number of times you listen to a legally acquired copy of their song. Copyright law only empowers the copyright owner to say who may or may not distribute the song. That's it.
By the way, it is legal for someone to distribute a copy of a work with certain stipulations like "you have to return this to the store by Thursday at 11pm", but that's a contract, and it has nothing to do with copyright law.
But being able to play content in different ways than the copyright owner wanted you to? No way is that fair use. He has every right to be able to charge you extra for that right, just as with other ways of enjoying his work.
Again, that is not fair use, but it is also not a violation of copyright. He does not have every right to charge me for the right to play the content in different ways, just as he does not have the right to prohibit other ways of enjoying his work. If Stephen King doesn't want me to use legally acquired copies of his books as toilet paper, guess what? Tough shit for him (and tough toilet paper for me, but that's not the point).