Today Is International Day Against DRM 256
jrepin writes "Digital restrictions management (DRM) creates damaged goods that users cannot control or use freely. It requires users to give-up control of their computers and restricts access to digital data and media. Device manufacturers and corporate copyrights holders have already been massively infecting their products with user-hostile DRM. Tablets, mobile phones and other minicomputers are sold with numerous restrictions embedded that cripple users freedom. The proposal at table in W3C to put DRM into HTML goes even further. Fight it: use today's today is international Day Against DRM, so spread the word and make yourself heard!"
The EFF suggests making every day a day against DRM.
US-centric (Score:4, Interesting)
But if one wants to have a specific day to agitate for something, maybe give some advance warning? Also, a better though-out plan than "spread the word and make yourself heard" might also be useful.
Re:If we can put an end to DRM (Score:5, Interesting)
There is nothing wrong with DRM. Personally, I think it is not a good idea for music or games. Those are things that should exist perpetually and for your own personal use.
However, it is short sighted to say that DRM should not exist. I brought this up in the previous DRM related thread, but people don't think of its best possible uses.
- When a doctor is sharing your medical information to another doctor, wouldn't you want control over when/where that medical information can be viewed? Wouldn't you want it to self destruct?
- When you work under SEC rules and have to provide your financial statements to management for compliance, wouldn't you want control over where/when those can be viewed?
Yes, it is a bad idea to treat your customers like thieves. But it isn't a bad idea when 3rd parties are distributing your private information to other 3rd parties.
Re:If we can put an end to DRM (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Of course the EFF hates DRM-- They're Google (Score:4, Interesting)
1) So what if it's older.
Well it means that they were provably against such things before google came on the scene. Therefore google appear to have not modified the EFF's behaviour.
And so they dance like any hired gun.
[citation needed]
i.e. put up or shut up.
Show one thing where the EFF have gone against their stated goals as a result of google's influence.
3) DRM is secure communication. The pirates are the eavesdroppers.
There's no notion of "pirate" in the cryptography world. Please make some attempt to stick to established terminology otherwise understanding you is quite difficult.
The eavesdropper is the same as the recipient. That's the difference. Eve and Bob are the same person.
Locking up my love letter so only my spouse can read it is the exact technological challenge as locking up my artistic creation so only the non-pirates can view it.Locking up my love letter so only my spouse can read it is the exact technological challenge as locking up my artistic creation so only the non-pirates can view it.
Not even slightly. Pirates aren't eavesdroppers. Your spouse is the pirate. DRM is an attempt to make it readable but not copyable by your spouse.
Quit being a sap for leeching business models
That's an odd allegation.
Quit being a sap for leeching business models. The EFF and Google just want to manipulate you into hating DRM so the money will keep flowing to them.
I disliked DRM before google even existed. It was called copy protection then.
Re:If we can put an end to DRM (Score:4, Interesting)
You're describing some kind of science fiction fantasy, not DRM. DRM, as we currently know it today, means that neither your own doctor or the other doctor, is able to view the medical information at all, unless they pay some third party (not you) for some kind of tech license, and passes that cost on to you. And then the licensing body (not you) decides what can be done with the information.
If we had DRMed medical records, every patient would have to ask their doctor to store a second copy of all the records, outside of the broken DRM system, so that the information would actually be accessible when it's needed.
The DRM fantasy industry has had ample opportunity to come up with a non-stupid DRM scheme. They have a 100% failure rate: EVERY SINGLE TIME that DRM has been used, it has interfered with customers and providing incentive for them to cut off revenue, and there have been only a few (edge!) cases (DivX) where the DRM prevented misuses. It's all expense and never provides any benefit. Every time. If DRM failed only 99% of the time, maybe we could chalk it up to growing pains, but right now all evidence points to it being a complete scam.
Imagine an industry where, after a few decades and many many products, 100% of the time it turned out to be fraud. DRM is right up there with astrology. That's how seriously we should take it, and it is an outrage that our government is for it, rather than neutral toward it (the conservative, pre-DMCA approach) or outlawing it (the progressive approach).