Cory Doctorow on Digital Rights Management 415
VerdeRana writes "I just heard the EFF's Cory Doctorow give this fantastic argument critiquing DRM. He makes a great case for why DRM is bad for society, business, and artists, why it simply don't work, and why Microsoft (the audience for this talk) should not invest in it. Broadcast this far and wide, and maybe someone will listen."
I say let MS invest heavily with DRM... (Score:3, Interesting)
Why DRM will work (Score:1, Interesting)
What you think about DRM doesn't matter a whit.
DRM has a bad name... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:DRM (Score:1, Interesting)
DRM is specifically related to the locking and unlocking of media files dependent upon the licensing of that media.
DVD region locking is about blocking the usage of media outside of an "acceptable" zone.
DRM is completely moral, within the bounds of appropriate DRM. In fact, with DRM-enabled devices, you are able to back up your media to your heart's content, providing that you actually paid for the media in the first place. Region locking is not moral, as it prohibits you from using media that you may have paid for in a system that only refuses to play the media because of the location of the player.
Re:The problem with digital right is (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:DRM (Score:3, Interesting)
People think that DRM is catchall, they do not realise that there are many smilar schemes going on.
DVD Region locking is stupid, this is just making international trade laws redundant as if you didn't want a DVD to be sold in a country, you could just have its import banned. I cannot believe I had to buy Ed Wood's movie box in the USA because these are NOT available in Switzerland at all despite the movie's been around for.... decades. So, DVD Region Locking is supposed to prevent movie sales to occur while these are stilly played in movie theaters.
Now, if this were true, then most "old" movies would have been released as Region-0.
And no, DRM is not moral.
Short example
I am remixer.
I want to rip an Audio CD in order to practise my skills.
I can't.
I want to make record to submit to my producer.
I can't.
Even though I'd have negociated the rights before entering commercialisation...
So, even if it is moral (for a Klingon's point of view) it is totally stupid because you cannot build equity if you base it upon suspicion.
Full Article Text (Score:2, Interesting)
Cory Doctorow
cory@eff.org
June 17, 2004
--
This text is dedicated to the public domain, using a Creative Commons public domain dedication:
> Copyright-Only Dedication (based on United States law)
>
> The person or persons who have associated their work with this
> document (the "Dedicator") hereby dedicate the entire copyright
> in the work of authorship identified below (the "Work") to the
> public domain.
>
> Dedicator makes this dedication for the benefit of the public at
> large and to the detriment of Dedicator's heirs and successors.
> Dedicator intends this dedication to be an overt act of
> relinquishment in perpetuity of all present and future rights
> under copyright law, whether vested or contingent, in the Work.
> Dedicator understands that such relinquishment of all rights
> includes the relinquishment of all rights to enforce (by lawsuit
> or otherwise) those copyrights in the Work.
>
> Dedicator recognizes that, once placed in the public domain, the
> Work may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used,
> modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited by anyone for any
> purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and in any way, including
> by methods that have not yet been invented or conceived.
--
Greetings fellow pirates! Arrrrr!
I'm here today to talk to you about copyright, technology and DRM, I work for the Electronic Frontier Foundation on copyright stuff (mostly), and I live in London. I'm not a lawyer -- I'm a kind of mouthpiece/activist type, though occasionally they shave me and stuff me into my Bar Mitzvah suit and send me to a standards body or the UN to stir up trouble. I spend about three
weeks a month on the road doing completely weird stuff like going to Microsoft to talk about DRM.
I lead a double life: I'm also a science fiction writer. That means I've got a dog in this fight, because I've been dreaming of making my living from writing since I was 12 years old. Admittedly, my IP-based biz isn't as big as yours, but I guarantee you that it's every bit as important to me as yours is to you.
Here's what I'm here to convince you of:
1. That DRM systems don't work
2. That DRM systems are bad for society
3. That DRM systems are bad for business
4. That DRM systems are bad for artists
5. That DRM is a bad business-move for MSFT
It's a big brief, this talk. Microsoft has sunk a lot of capital into DRM systems, and spent a lot of time sending folks like Martha and Brian and Peter around to various smoke-filled rooms to make sure that Microsoft DRM finds a hospitable home in the future world. Companies like Microsoft steer like old Buicks, and this issue has a lot of forward momentum that will be hard to soak up without driving the engine block back into the driver's compartment. At best I think that Microsoft might convert some of that momentum on DRM into angular momentum, and in so doing, save
all our asses.
Let's dive into it.
--
1. DRM systems don't work
This bit breaks down into two parts:
1. A quick refresher course in crypto theory
2. Applying that to DRM
Cryptography -- secret writing -- is the practice of keeping secrets. It involves three parties: a sender, a receiver and an attacker (actually, there can be more attackers, senders and recipients, but let's keep this simple). We usually call these people Alice, Bob and Carol.
Let's say we're in the days of the Caesar, the Gallic War. You need to send messages back and forth to your generals, and you'd prefer that the enemy doesn't get hold of them. You can rely on the idea that anyone who intercepts your message is probably illiterate, but that's a tough bet to stake your empire on. You can put your messages into the hands of reliable messengers who'll chew them up and swallow them
Persuit of DRM policy (Score:2, Interesting)
It is a technology they are trying to force on everyone because it allows them a greater level of control over their market, and they are using the Hollywood lobby to push their own agenda.
As such, Corys talk can be used to unmask their real plans by debunking the "spin"
In the end it does not matter, turing will out!
what happens when Moores Law cranks a couple of more notches and we can use MS Excel as a media player by scripting it with VBA?
Where is your DRM then...
Re:DRM (Score:2, Interesting)
Wishful thinking. What makes you think Riaa and the like will allow this to happen. they won't.
Re:DRM (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The problem with digital right is (Score:3, Interesting)
That depends on what grounds the decision is made on. If a copyright holder were to say "You don't have the right to read this becuase your skin colour is black" then that would be racial discrimination and illegal in many parts of the world. It seems to me that discrimination based on geographical location (nationality?) is somewhat dodgy too.
Re:The problem with digital right is (Score:2, Interesting)
Poor logic (Score:2, Interesting)
The ultimate point of his lecture is where he rants about how nobody's calling up manufacturers and begging them for features that restrict rights, therefore there is no market demand for DRM. But he overlooks the obvious fact there are whole markets that would not exist if not for DRM. Like iTunes and DVDs, for example. If the manufacturers won't release the products without DRM, and customers want the product, they'll buy it with DRM, therefore, there IS market demand for DRM.
Hey, I'm no fan of DRM, but this sort of sloppy thinking isn't going to help his case, even if he throws in 1337 5p33k and pirate voice "arrr.."s into his lame lecture.
Re:You can't blame them for trying (Score:3, Interesting)
We all just seem to assume that if you offered your property for $1/track, that piracy would vanish. Well, they took us up on that challenge, and piracy hasn't vanished.
Really, I don't think most of "we" have ever been honest about it. When companies tried to crack down on Napster and similar services, the complaint was that they should go after the file sharers. Going after the file sharers then wasn't acceptable; DRM isn't acceptable either. The reality is that the techie community has never offered anything beyond "You're rich and I hate you and computers should be outside the law and anyway I'm helping the artists by not paying them."
What about the promise of the World Wide Web? (Score:4, Interesting)
His article is impeccably, thorough, and articulate. The research and timeline used to explain his points were... well... I can't even fucking come close to writing like that which is obvious at the moment. Like the story submitter said, it was fantastic. He clearly points out the problem with great detail. However, he doesn't propose a solution.
When the World Wide Web was introduced, it seemed like a godsend; now books would be published electronically, libraries could be digitised, and anyone anywhere in the world would be able to search through them and read anything. Yet that isn't how things have panned out, even after years of its existence. The Internet has become an indispensable research tool, but it turned out to be something very different from a library. Information comes in bits and pieces, squeezed within a clutter of navigational panes and advertisements. Web pages have the flashy, disorienting visual effect of grocery shelves. It never turned out to be the coherent electronic medium for publishing that it was meant to.
The way corporations are implementing DRM does not address this issue by design. DRM is meant to secure profit for corporations, while constraining the potential of technology to fit in an antiquated business model. Yes, authors, musicians, film-makers, and everyone involved in creating forms of media must make a living. Yet the internet must also be allowed to reach its full potential in allowing people to access their works. There must be a way of allowing both to happen.
Re:You can't blame them for trying (Score:5, Interesting)
In fact, Hollywood was founded on gross "piracy" and infringement of "intellectual property" of New York film studios and foreign content creators.
Re:Same (Score:2, Interesting)
1) True. I'm not sure what the point here is.
2) You're welcome to riducule the importance of ease of use, but the bottom line is that a product that's easier to use is a better product. Does this trump all other concerns? No. Should it be a factor in how we decide to design our products? Yes
3) I don't find Doctorow's speech to be strident. If nothing else, it's less strident than your post. However, it's true that anything can be copied, and everyone who learns this is better off, especially holders of copyright and those creating media technologies.
4) Whethere or not there are business models that can succeed in the age of perfect, cheap copies is a point for honest debate. I've never heard of conditions under which motivated entrepreneurs can't find a way to make money, but until they do, it's an open subject. In the meantime, mocking those who believe that a business model that benefits both artists and consumers can be built isn't an argument against, it's just an ad-hominem attack.
5) Claiming that we're all better off when producers of art, music and literature are able to create works that are inspired by or remix earlier works is not the same thing as saying that those earlier works are worthless. You might disagree that everyone benefits, but it's kind of ridiculous to claim that anyone thinks art is worthless.
In response to your final question, I would answer that if there were no conditions under which people with computers and internet connections would pay for a movie/book/cd/whatever, that the studios and publishers would have already gone out of business.
Its a new world, old rules may need to change (Score:4, Interesting)
Here is how I see this playing out, take musicians: lets imagine a world where musicians realize that they don't need publishers anymore (at least, not old guard publishers); instead, they put their own copies of their studio recorded music out on the filesharing networks free for anyone to download. They make their living by doing a combination of other things a) live concerts INCLUDING streaming broadcasts on the internet b) limited runs of collector's editions a.k.a. box sets, artistic packages, etc. c) any number of new ways to do things that I can't imagine because they haven't been invented/popularized yet.
Regarding A: yes anyone can rip the stream and make it available for download. But what you're attempting to do is to get society back into a mode where it appreciates live musical performances and values them accordingly. In other words, going back to the pre-piano player days. But this time you aren't limited to only being able to play in front of a roomful of people at a time. The challenge will be keeping the performances interesting and entertaining. Today's artists (Britney) aren't simply going to be able to take a road-show from city to city doing the exact same choreographed dance moves and expect people to tune in to broadcast after broadcast. Fortunately there are musicians out there that actually play music and know how to improvise. Hey I know its a crazy idea but there once was a time when people actually enjoyed music like jazz that by its very nature is changing.
Regarding B: there is a market right now for art books. Books that tell a story but do so with a collage of words, pictures, and tactile experiences. These are generally expensive to produce, especially the ones with hand-made art. So the print run is limited. But that's a good thing. You can sell them for $100 or $200 to a limited audience of really enthusiastic fans. How about a box set of a new CD release from your favorite band that has hand copied liner notes, or maybe hand copies of the original sheets that the song was written on (scribbles and all), would you buy it? Maybe not, but I'm guessing there are fans that would.
Regarding C: I don't have a magic crystal ball but I'm still confident that artists and musicians will come up with new and interesting ways to display their art to society and hopefully these new models will not be so dependent on owning a stranglehold on disseminating the actual bits. Just as player pianos begat pre-recorded publishing in the first place, the internet will beget new ways of disseminating art that we may not have thought of yet at this early stage of the game. The fellow (or gal) that comes up with this new scheme stands to make a pretty penny selling it to the artists.
The entire premise of today's movie and music business is that you can make a fortune by controlling a stranglehold on dissemination. Well, that stranglehold has been loosened, time to find some other way. The stranglehold on distribution itself is a relatively modern happenstance, so this idea that its an artist's god given right to be paid handsomely for each note of his or her creation every time it gets played is a strange one, historically speaking. This evolution will require some effort on the part of the artists, but also some changes in society. Re-acquiring appreciation for live performances and musical improvisation and substance over style. Am I optimistic? Maybe overly so, time will tell.
Re:Raiders of the Lost Art (Score:3, Interesting)
But visual media is different in that a single disseminated version tends to become the only version, possibly due to the costs. I can sit down and sing a song pretty easily and then cut CDs. But making a movie, even on a Mac using inexpensive software, involves a lot of work to get it to look like a movie and not a piece of crud.
Because it takes an enormous amount of time and potentially money--it might just take time, as the Raiders guys showed!--to make a film of a work, and because people tend to only put their spending dollars into seeing and renting one version of a work, then compulsory license for allowing remakes of movies based on the same script or based on a book or other work makes it less likely that any writer will ever see large-scale movies made.
When the two Prefontaine movies came out about the runner, I don't think either did well. How many movies of public domain works from the 19th century? Typically, you get a Disney production, and that kind of owns the slate.
Perhaps I'm wrong: maybe compulsory license would mean that no one artist gets a big win, like $100,000 or $500,000, but it might also mean that there would be an explosion in cottage filmmaking with garageband movie makers having the same chance to make a movie of a blockbuster novel as a giant studio. Kind of like how the smallest Web site can trump the biggest corporate site.
But I think movies require too much to make them look right, and I don't think the same necessity of compulsory license is needed to foster creativity.
Re:DRM (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The problem with digital right is (Score:2, Interesting)
Copyright law restricts the reproduction of a work, not its consumption. If you write and publish a book, then I have a right to read it by virtue of it being published (i.e. made public). I don't even have to pay you to read it.
Are you saying that there are (or should be) laws that allow a writer to exercise control over who can read his published book?
You have given an example of an unfair restriction (i.e. no black readers). Can you please give an example of a fair restriction?
Re:He missed the point (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not sure what you mean. At a minimum each application in NGSCB gets a different key. It uses a million different signing keys and encryption keys all over the place. You'll routinely have a file encrypted by a key, and that key encrypted by an other key, and that key encrypted by a chain of other keys encrypting each other. The same goes for signatures on signatures on signatures on signatures, a whole chain of signing keys.
Each trust chip does have two master keys (different on every computer) - a PrivEK which is only used to decrypt or sign (never to encrypt), and a root storage key, but that key is only used to encrypt other keys.
It wants that key protected inside the CPU.
Well, they would eventually like to see the Trust chip (and it's two master keys) merged into the CPU. But for the time being they are satisfied with those keys locked inside the Trust chip.
It wants OEM's to pre-register the computer with Microsoft and the key exchange will be done at that time to avoid man in the middle attacks.
False. Trusted Computing does not function like that.
The SRK is randomly generated when you get the computer home. No one, not even Microsoft can get at that key. YOU are especially forbidden to know your SRK.
The other key, PrivEK, is generated or placed in the chip at manufacturing. No one can get at that key either, not Microsoft, and especially not you.
The foundation of Trusted Computing is that you are forbidden to know your own keys. If you knew your keys then you could unlock anything on your computer. If you could do that, then THEY (meaning Microsoft, the RIAA, the MPAA, websites, whoever) then THEY cannot Trust your computer to do what THEY want it to do. THEY cannot trust your computer to enforce DRM against you. You could simply unlock everything and do what you want.
They can't trust you, so they want to Trust your computer to control what you can and cannot do.
That's why you are forbidden to know your own keys. Anyway, back to the keys...
The PrivEK has a public half - the PubEK. They are a matched set, and they only work with each other. PubEK is not secret. You *are* allowed to know the PubEK. The PubEK key is signed by the manufacturer's key to prove it is a genuine chip key. The manufacturers key is only used to sign chip keys. The manufacturer's key is signed by the TrustedComputingGroups Master key to prove it is a genuine manufacturer's key. The TCG's Master key is only used to sign manufacturer's keys.
So what happens is that you send your public PubEK off to Microsoft, or to a Certificate Authority, or whoever. You also send alond the manufacturer's signature, proving it is a real PubEK. You also send along the TCG's signature for the manufacturer's key, proving it is a real manufacturer signature.
So someone gets all that and they know you sent a reak PubEK, and they know that PubEK matches up with a real PrivEK, and that real PrivEK's are only allowed to exist locked inside a chip, and that YOU are forbidden to know that key.
Your PC will have an encrypted channel, done via private key encryption between your CPU and Microsoft.
Sort of. Actually anyone that you give your PubEK to, as described above, can then get an encrypted channel to that chip. I will skip the details because it's even more confusing that what I explained above, lol.
Anyway, that other person now knows that they are talking to your chip, and that YOU cannot understand, control, or alter that conversation. At this point your chip pretty much has total control of everything, and therefor whoever is talking to your chip sort of has ownership of your computer. It's real messy here. Technically that other person has no more control over your computer than you "voluntarily" granted them. On the other hand if you didn't grant them any and all control they demanded then nothing would be working at a
Re:I say let MS invest heavily with DRM... (Score:3, Interesting)
After all, much of the stuff on the Web (including all the stuff here on slashdot) comes with a copyright notice. How many of us ever get written permission from the copyright holder before we copy their material to our disk and screen?
Of course, Microsoft seems to want to enforce "Digital Rights" when the copyright owner is demanding protection. So what we need is a few writers who are willing to make a fuss about all the IE users who are pirating their copyrighted material.
As the