Commerce Dep't to Hold Public Workshop on DRM 139
ttyp writes: "The United States Department of Commerce Technology Administration (TA) announced a public workshop on digital entertainment and rights management. They're taking public comments here according to the announcement, but they sure have hidden it well. Can anybody find the form? The deadline is July 11!!"
Show up in large numbers (Score:3, Interesting)
That's the big issue, isn't it? (Score:4, Interesting)
In a perfect world, we'd just send artists money directly. All sorts. Musicians, authors, actors, CowboyNeal.. Remember, DRM isn't just about the music industry, though they'll be the biggest proponent behind it. I don't think the publishing and movie industry are that worried about being 'hard hit' by piracy, at least not like the RIAA. Publishers have had to deal with libraries, and box offices have had to deal with Blockbuster.
But they'll be looking into DRM as more authors are willing to risk the snickers of their collegues and start to publish online, and *if* broad pipes ever become a reality to home users, Dreamworks and friends will start looking at distribution of movies over the 'net.
Now, back to artists. Bands get squat from cd sales, and unless they're top 40, they don't even get much advertising from the bloodthirsty corps. Authors? As any good author can tell you, unless you're a marketing gimmick, or have been around for years, you'd best have a day job. Movies, well, there's one thing they've got going for them - a home theatre will never equal a *real* theatre.
Sucks, doesn't it? But think about this: With DRM, we ensure artists get *something*, even if it is a nickel. Without it, there's a much better chance they'll get screwed totally. One can argue that a person who steals (Not pirate. I don't see anyone with eyepatches, damnit!), wouldn't pay for such content anyway, but I'll not argue that anyway.
Why? Because, DRM is coming. We can fight gloriously and lose, or we can cut our losses and give them input on how it should work. Don't let the bloody warcries on the death of the RIAA/MPAA/etc. dissuade you from tossing these guys some input. It could very well make life much more bearable until we do finally get rid of them.
Here's The Comment I Just Sent (Score:4, Interesting)
If a technical solution to preserving "fair use" is not possible, a legal solution would be acceptable -- legislation would have to require that a copyright holder not use a DRM system in such a way as to prevent fair use, and I suggest that the appropriate penalty for failure to comply would be for them to lose the copyright on the work concerned and have it placed in the public domain for all to copy and resell freely.
You will note that several existing DRM technologies, such as DVD region coding and Macrovision, fail to meet this criterion. This is a serious issue which I suggest you should address at the workshop.
Re:The General Public vs Stakeholders (Score:5, Interesting)
If I get the chance to speak at the meeting, I'm debating what I should say:
- As a federal agent, enforcing the laws on DRM would be impossibly hard. The bad guys are just going to break whatever system you put out there.
- As a law abiding, but busy guy, I like the convenience of downloading music on-line and putting it on my iPod when I go jogging (to stay in shape and help defend America from terrorists. Okay, that last part is implied, but it would curry favor with the types on this kind of panel.)
- Forcing everyone to use DRM will stifle innovation as it limits the uses of the music. JXL would never have been able to get an editable copy of Elvis Presley's "Little Less Conversation" to remix into the new cool tune he put out. (Yes, I know JXL went through all of the licensing hoops, but IMHO it's a good example of something that would be denied to ordinary people if DRM is universal.)
Does anybody else have any other ideas? I'm open to suggestions.Move the debate away from "copying" (Score:3, Interesting)
As far as I can tell, MOST of the problems caused for consumers by DRM plans involve the **AA's focus on preventing "copying" (indeed, it's even called "COPYright")...despite the fact that the Fair Use doctrine seems to imply that COPYING is not the "cause" of a copyright violation - DISTRIBUTION is.
Theoretically, anything I have a legal right to access, I also have a legal "Fair Use" right to copy, translate, garble, "space shift" to other media, "time shift" to watch later [I assume rented media includes this right, up to the length of the rental agreement, after which I no longer have a right to KEEP a copy], and so on. Where the violation occurs is when I DISTRIBUTE these copies to people who don't have a right to them.
If the focus of DRM would move towards distribution rather than copying, I'd feel a lot less worried about what the **AA were buying from my government. (Not to say that I WANT some sort of monitor chip implanted in every ethernet card, but I would feel less constrained by that than the monitor chip getting in my way every time I try to make a copy for my own personal use...)
Re:National Medal of Technology (Score:3, Interesting)
Bill Gates was a f**king lucky individual and if there was a slight change in history around about 1980 he would be here on SlashDot complaining bitterly about whoever did become the meglamanical monopolist. He did absolutly nothing that tens of thousands of other people could see as obvious ways to progress, and in fact made serious errors in judgement such as dismissing the internet and thinking information delivered on CD's such as encylopaedias was the future.