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!"
Re:What?! (Score:3, Interesting)
Would some one please explain... (Score:5, Interesting)
Would some one please explain what exactly it wrong with DRM? If you have a problem with concept of copyrights in general, then I can understand. But is there anyone out there that is cool with copyrights, but thinks DRM is bad?
I'm not trying to be an apologist for the corporations. I know they don't care about the art or the artist, only money. That's given. But do they not have a right to protect their intellectual property? Are the detractors of DRM against the concept of intellectual property altogether?
The way I see it is there is nothing wrong with the concept of DRM, only with the abuse of DRM. Is this a "slippery slope" argument?
I'm serious in my plea here. Someone please fill me in on what I am missing!
Same reasons you'd buy a book (Score:5, Interesting)
Same reasons you'd buy a book, rather than scan one you borrowed from the library:
- You want a non-infringing copy. (You CAN still be sued for copying outside fair use, you know.)
- You want to reward the creator and distribution channel (either out of principle or to promote creation of more stuff you like).
- It's convenient.
Content producers in a number of media have experimented with copy inhibition technologies and generally found them unnecessary and often counter-productive to good business results. Why should music be different?
(The current rash of "piracy" is, IMHO, primarily a reaction to broken distribution and pricing policies, and recording companies will do a lot better once {if?} they get over it.)
Re:Would some one please explain... (Score:4, Interesting)
The trouble is, for even daring to suggest that DRM has its place, and that file sharing copyrighted material is illegal, you can expect to be criticised, insulted, and generally modded down to oblivion. Thats the current slashdot philosophy. All companies are evil (unless they are somehow connected to linux), everyone who is caught coopying files illegally is absolutely 100% innocent, and anyone who disagrees is some evil, stupid luddite.
Welcome to slashdot. Not a friendly place for the creators of digital content.
Re:Would some one please explain... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Would some one please explain... (Score:5, Interesting)
In practice, DRM implementations usually make it difficult to play/view/... the content, except with proprietary and secret tools, while doing nothing to stop copying the content without authorization (unlawful use). To play/view/... the content, you are usually required to use proprietary and secret tools (locking you into using some vendor's products), and reverse-engineering the format (e.g. to create a player for a platform not supported by the official player) is a criminal offense. Also, DRM implementations sometimes involve yielding control of (part of) your computer to another organization, sometimes going as far as allowing said organization to cause your hardware to self-destruct (e.g. Blu-ray players).
The fundamental problem of DRM is that "trying to make bits uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet." When you have a song/movie/ebook/... in a file on your computer, or even when you can only access it by streaming it from the Net, you can make copies of it, burn it on CDs, give it to your friends, etc. The only way you can be prevented from doing so is by taking your control of your computer away from you. Alternatively, vendors could let you copy the files at will, but restrict access to the actual content (e.g. through encryption). However, once your computer has enough data to decrypt the content once, you could save that data, share it with your friends, etc. Again, the only way you can be prevented from doing this is by taking away your control over your computer.
It's absolutely out of the question that DRM could go together with open source software. OSS means that you're allowed read and modify the source code to the software. This makes it very easy for you to find the DRM code and change it, so that restrictions are not enforced. It would make DRM trivial to break, defeating its purpose. Sure, it's illegal (under the DMCA/EUCD/...), but so are speeding and copying works that you don't hold the copyright to; that doesn't prevent these things from happening.
Re:Why Apple? (Score:1, Interesting)
Apple plays A?-DRM, AAC, and MP3.
Sony plays S?-DRM and MP3.
MS plays M?-DRM, WMA and MP3.
Creative plays MP3 and OGG and FLAC.
Samsung plays WMA, MP3 and OGG.
The point to get accross is that if you buy ??-DRM, it is likely to be obsolete as by its nature it is non-standard, hidden format.
Sure its best not to get one with DRM, to avoid paying for an unwanted feature, but if you only use "standard/portable" formats, that ok too.