BBC on DRM and Trusted Computing

distantbody writes "This BBC article by Bill Thompson is balanced and concise on the issues of DRM and 'Trusted Computing,' and offers some insights as to why such systems are the wrong path to follow for consumers and businesses alike. From the the article: 'We need to ensure that trusted computing remains under the control of the users and is not used to take away the freedoms we enjoy today ... the flexibility of copyright law is something that should be embraced and not taken away.'"

rms on treacherous computing

rms on the subject [gnu.org] if someone hasn't read that yet.

Re:rms on treacherous computing

Those who quote RMS rarely know him.

The sad thing about Trusted Computing is that copyright enforcement is probably the one security problem it does not provide significant leverage for. Copyright is break once run anywhere.

I was at an SDMI conference, I could not find a single company interested in talking about the payment side of the problem.

I have little sympathy for either side in the debate. I have no time for the freeloaders who want to get something for nothing and no time for the freeloaders who want to use their economic power to get something for next to nothing and sell it expensive.

Freeloaders

Unfortunately--at least on /., anyway--the loud opinions of those "freeloaders" usually makes rational discussion of copyrights, intellectual property, and DRM meaningless. You can't get past the "RIAA IS EVIL AND I AM A FREEDOM FIGHTER" mindset. I think we'll start seeing some real progress and some valid compromises made by both sides if we can get past the reactionary attitudes that really only exist to shift blame away from downloaders and onto some faceless corporate entity, because demonization is easier than acknowledgement of one's own guilt.

The truth is that the portrayal of both sides is usually wrong. Most companies aren't big, evil, cigar-smoking Republicans sitting in dark rooms plotting economic takeovers to maintain their monopolies. They're just companies trying to protect their media content because of the explosion of piracy. And pirates aren't freedom fighters riding the wave of a big cultural movement. Most are just freeloaders looking to get stuff without having to pay for it (it's basic human nature).

So far, iTunes has been a big success, so apparently a lot of consumers have no problem with DRM and online legal music-downloading. So to be quite honest, I don't know why people still complain about an "obsolete business model" when record labels have already embraced services like Napster and iTunes. Legal online music is already here, which makes the argument for piracy appear even more self-serving.

Re:Freeloaders

DRM is a technological solution to a social problem. It's been said many times before, but it's still true.

The problem with the Big labels' acceptance of the "new" business model like Napster (subscription) is that if they could, they'd rent you content and charge per use. A "pay-per-view" society is the content providers' wet dream. A funnel of money coming from your wallet and going to their bank account each time you turn on your TV, read a newspaper, or get on the internet.

Don't think that's what they want? DiVX was a piss-poor version of what they REALLY are after. You not having a physical copy of anything, and they controlling both ends of the pipe.

Can't do it? No, not yet they can't. But Trusted Computing and the legislation to back up their lockdown (DMCA anyone?), and they, not you, are in control. Each step is making it harder and harder for people to exert their rights over the rights of content owners, not the producers, the OWNERS. The biggest cry is from those who create NOTHING. They just OWN it. Who are the REAL freeloaders in this debate?

Explosion of piracy? You sound like a PR statement from the RIAA front desk. They are making billions. Still raking it in.. and by the way, increasing sales, in the face of "the explosion of piracy." How can they explain this? Well, they'd be making TRILLIONS if it weren't for those bastard college students. In other words, they don't. Don't look at how much we are making. Look at how much we claim to be losing. (That's another debate entirely.)

Every technological advancement has been met with the same brand of resistance and sometimes even from the same people (MPAA and VCR, anyone?) Every time the content providers adapt and innovate, they tap into yet another stream of revenue. Every time they stifle, legislate, sue, and whine, they disappear. It's called progress. Get on the train, or be left at the station. Sad thing is, the current content providers want to obliterate the train and the station.

They won't innovate anymore. Now their course it to control. I am not a freeloader, but I am also not going to give up any control. The things these people are trying to control are worthless pieces of entertainment that are not essential to your or my daily life. The sooner people realize this, the sooner the importance of this whole debate will return to the level it should. These providers aren't making anything we can't live without.

I for one would rather do without than to live under someone else's control. Nothing they have is worth losing your freedom over. Nothing.

I know why...

I don't know why people still complain about an "obsolete business model" when record labels have already embraced services like Napster and iTunes.

Have you ever checked the prices they charge? Comparing prices for online music with the price of store bought CDs one gets the impression that the manufacture and distribution of CDs has a negative cost.

I would gladly pay for online music if the price was in the same order of magnitude as the cost the distributors have. But when they charge something like $1/song, and I must pay for all the downloading cost, something seems basically unfair.

The "business model" is still obsolete, it's done in the same way John D. Rockefeller used to do business. It's a cartel (or a "trust", as it was called in the late 19th century) that fixes prices and imposes artificial barriers to competition. Things like the broadcast bit and closed binary formats have the same use as the different train gauges the "robber barons" of the 19th century used to push independent railroads out of business.

No, the media cartel uses unethical business methods, and should be broken up. No new legislation is needed, any honest government could get rid of the ??AA using the same laws that were used to break up Standard Oil and AT&T. Meanwhile, what you call "piracy" I call "freedom fighting". Happy Boston Tea Party!

Trusted System

Quote "The efforts going into DRM would be much better spent building efficient distribution services, finding business models that are based on trusting your customers, and offering high quality downloads at fair prices. What we want is not so much a trusted computing platform as a trusted customer platform." "The record companies and the film industry need to recognise that most of us, most of the time, will pay a reasonable amount for good quality material" Customer will pay if it is good quality. However, there should be away they make illegal sharing out of the way.

Re:Trusted System

..., most of us, most of the time, will pay a reasonable amount for good quality material , ...

Absolutely... as a matter of fact I think it's more than most, it's close to ALL. Human nature is to take the path of least resistance, and while some take to the challenge of stealing... most don't. So, while some in the past would make illegal copies and share "illegally" (downloading, etc.), the record companies' response by tightening the screws eventually I think will have an unintended effect. At some point the extra onus on the customer to "unlock", and jump through all of the drm hoops just to use something they already paid for and thought they were just going to sit down and enjoy will push them to their path of least resistance... e.g., not bother with buying cd's anymore, not bother with dvd's anymore, not bother with iTunes anymore...

Instead they'll just use the radio, go to the movie theater, whatever. What a wasted amount of time and effort to "trust" we the consumers.

The customer is not the only concern these days

Most of the major content producers I have talked to about DRM services want to get their content out there to customers for reasonable prices and fair levels of control, the problem is that these major studios are for the most part middlemen.

The reason they require DRM for their online services is the spaghetti of contracts the entertainment industry has built up for themselves of the past several decades. For example if one studio released an album online unprotected, and the artists who created the content can demonstrate that piracy caused a loss in revinue, the content provider can be held legally liable for that loss.

As long as these studios took reasonable steps to prevent this piracy from occuring, their collective asses are covered, even if the DRM scheme used is cracked down the road.

DRM

They are right about DRM, by limiting the amount of time a user can view the file, they are just increasing demand for a cracked one.

If you had downloaded something, and it had DRM on it limiting the number of times you could view it or how long it could be viewed - it would just be a hassle, and would cause most people to either go looking or just wait for a unlocked version of it.

re-asking the question

Okay, so I've asked this before... I'll ask again... (refer to my previous post... [slashdot.org])

I had hoped for definitive answers to these questions, but if you'll re-read some of the responses to my post, while thoughtful, they were divergent and inconsistent among themselves. Again I am concerned what the "trusted computing" platform truly means... mostly because it appears to me it is mostly negative for the linux community.

A scenario played out last summer for me with... a local Mom and Pop grocery store kept EVERYTHING on their Windows XP PC, and one day it went toes-up. They were understandably distraught -- all of their business spreadsheets and wedding pictures (over 1G) were on the hard drive and they couldn't get to them. They were prepping the machine to be sent in to be re-imaged. I asked them if they knew that meant they were likely to lose their data. She was almost in tears. I went home, got my Knoppix CD, and with their permission, played... and, recovered ALL of their data and burned it redundantly to CD's.

So I ask, if theirs were a "trusted computing" machine, and I had tried to do the same thing for them with my Knoppix CD, would I have been able to? I'd hate to think this is one (of many) of the things we lose in this "better" world. Help!

(I honestly can't believe the computing world will stand for this, but maybe it's like boiling frogs in water... by the time we realize what's happening it's too late?)

Re:re-asking the question

if theirs were a "trusted computing" machine, and I had tried to do the same thing for them with my Knoppix CD, would I have been able to?

Absolutely NOT, and that's entirely the point.

Re:re-asking the question

"I honestly can't believe the computing world will stand for this" THE problem here is CHOICE. And if we find ourselves in a situation where there are laws who require computer makers to have a feature in order to sell it legally, then obviously they will obey and implement the feature in order to keep selling their products. The feature (or bug..) will soon be part of CPU units, and that, depending on implementation, will make a whole new scenario. The choices may soon be not upgrading or buying something with usage restrictions.

Re:re-asking the question

Trusted Computing is more insidious than you realize. The problem is that it will spread because it does *not* have the problems you think it has.

A Trusted computer can do anything a normal computer can do. A Trusted computer is a normal computer *plus* an extra handcuff mode. Outside handcuff mode it is a normal computer that can do anything you can do now. It's like a computer with speakers, when you turn the speakers off it's just as good as a normal speakerless computer.

It is such a threat becuase there is never any reason *not* to have a Trusted computer.

Not upgrading your computer will not help you. There is no need to outlaw normal computers because normal coupters aren't a threat to them, because normal computers will be increasingly useless. Trusted Computing it about new software that cannot be installed except in handcuff mode. New software that that can only be run in hancdcuff mode. It is about new media files and e-mail and WEBSITES that can only be seen in handcuff mode. And in a few years you may only be able to get an internet connection while in handcuff mode.

Yes all of the new stuff is crippled crap when you're in handcuff mode, but none of the new stuff will work at all outside handcuff mode, will not work on a normal computer. You're prefectly free to keep your old computer, you're perfectly free to manufacture and buy normal computers, but you'll get nothing but error messages from half the websites on the internet. You won't be able to read the e-mail your mother or your boss sent you. And your mother and your boss are going to blame you for not being able to read their mail, blame you for having a compatible computer, blame you for having an old obsolete computer.

The strategy is so insideous because there is no reason *not* to have a Trusted computer, and about making people increasingly suffer if they do not "upgrade" to a Trusted system.

-

Re:re-asking the question

Since we don't have trusted computing implemented yet, it is hard to say definitively. Given current chips, it is possible for the answer to be yes, and also possible for the answer to be no. Therefore in answering your question I am second-guessing how microsoft will set the defaults rather than what the chip can do.

My guess as to the most likely scenario is that you will be able to boot knoppix. I just cannot imagine the amount of pressure the linux community brings to bear if this happens. The TC chip will however PROBABLY not permit knoppix to unlock the hard drive. So at this point you're kinda stuck. It is likely you'll get low-level access to the disk, but dumping encrypted data isn't of much use.

It is possible the TC chip will trust knoppix once the user enters their password, in which case your recovery would go just fine. It is also possible there is a back door and if you send the encrypted partition to the NSA they will unlock it for you, though I doubt they'll offer the service even if it is possible.

Trusted Computing: Both good and bad

I think hardware based security is something that is needed by government and other organizations that handle sensitive information. That way we wouldn't be hearing about databases being cracked and having millions of people's information leaked. Thats the good part.

The bad part is what it means should trusted computing enter consumer electronics. With DRM it would be like having someone from the MPAA in my living room, and thats something I dont want to happen. While this technology sure has potential, it does need leash to keep it under control. I paid for the machine, so it should do what I want it to do.

Re:Trusted Computing: Both good and bad

No... trusted computing means that the first person who finds a flaw in that part of the operating system gets to write a virus that Norton/etc IS NOT ALLOWED TO LOOK AT, LET ALONE REMOVE!

To Be Fair...

...the BBC is publicly funded and so doesn't need to make a profit. They don't care if people go and download their stuff (in fact, they're soon going to be offering their archives online) because they don't have advertising revenue to lose and have already made their money from everyone in the UK with a TV who pays £120/year to them. I'm sure that a commercial company that actually had to turn a profit would be singing a different tune.

Re:To Be Fair...

Well, maybe that means the BBC has the right business model and the commercial media industry doesn't?

Not 100% correct

BBC Enterprises makes a decent income from the sale of videos and DVDs to consumers, and master tapes to overseas broadcasters. As such, BBC Enterprises would be hard-hit if piracy were to destroy their markets, which would (in the end) impact the BBC in general.

It is an interesting twist of fate, though, that a significant fraction of the BBC Enterprise's income come from Black and White footage that the BBC Archives destroyed in the 1970s, but was later recovered by enthusiasts, media history fanatics, broadcasters with a sense of history, etc.

Had DRM existed in the 1960s, virtually everything prior to 1970 would have been lost forever. This would have included virtually all the Doctor Who stories, the BBC coverage of the moon landings, and many other recordings now regarded as historic and of extreme interest.

Fans of The Avengers would also have lost out, as many Catherine Gale episodes were recovered from a landfill site, as were the two known surviving episodes from the first season with Dr. Keel.

No, television today would be poorer, had they had DRM back then. The BBC would appear to have learned the hard way, but nonetheless have learned that copyright cuts both ways. It hurts EVERYONE and not just those supposedly targetted.

Orrin Hatch and American broadcasters have never really experienced the devastating losses that can result from a single bad decision. (Well, at least, not in broadcasting. The US has suffered many losses due to bad decisions in other areas of life.) Their refusal to recognise the lessons demonstrated so clearly by others is frightening. Faulty policies, through ignorance, can be excused. But there is no ignorance here. They know perfectly well what others have experienced, and either through arrogance or contempt, do not make any effort to avoid repeating those experiences here in the US.

BBC

As an American, I'd like to express my gratitude to the BBC for being one of the most, if not THE most outstanding media organization in the world.

I know they have their faults, but when they need to come through, they really come through, especially on matters of public interest.

I for one welcome our new BBC Overlords, in hopes that they will be a big ally in our struggle to further media distribution on the net.

Keep in mind

BBC on DRM and Trusted Computing

Bill Thompson is the Beebs geeky, slashdotty type technology editor. His articles are not representitive of BBC corporate policy, as the headline seems to imply.

+1 Informative

This is a very important point, lest anyone in the UK be lulled into a false sense of security as to their vulnerability to this kind of thing.

If anything Europeans need to fight harder against this stuff because often those arguing against it are arrogant Americans whose argument is often "we do it in the US, therefore you must too". The irony often is that they have a harder time pushing it in the US than elsewhere.

I had a recent experience [locut.us] of this type of thing in teh debate over software patents in the EU.

EFF and Berkeley

The EFF has been following the DRM issue [eff.org] for quite some time now. See also this 2003 conference on DRM at Berkeley [berkeley.edu].

Whew!

This BBC article by Bill Thompson is balanced and concise on the issues of DRM and 'Trusted Computing

You scared me for a second. At first, it looked like it said 'fair and balanced'.

The fundamental trouble with Trusted Computing

I think the key passage from the article is:

It will not work because of the fundamental flaw at the heart of the system: in order for the purchaser to view the content it has to be unlocked. Once it is unlocked then someone, somewhere, will figure out a way to make a copy of the unlocked version. And once an unlocked version leaks onto the network it will be uncontrollable.

The other day, when Slashdot did a story on the Wiki L. Lessig was using to create a new version of his book... I read through his section on Trusted Computing and all I could think about is precisely the problem described above. There is no way to allow users to listen to/read/watch content that prevents that user from generating a copy of it. Have any of the trusted computing advocates addessed this issue? Is there some party line from the Lessig camp that explains how such a system could possibly protect digital content?

If there's an argument to be made, I'm ready to hear it. Otherwise... all this talk about the New Age of Copyright just seems kinda silly.

"trusted computing"? Framing issue

Lets not use the language of the opposition.

By using the words "trusted computing" they are trying to vehicle a certain sub-text, just like when certain people use "tax relief" instead of "tax cuts" or "death tax" instead of "tax on estates of over 1 million dollars".

George Lakoff would have a lot to say about this...

right to read

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html [gnu.org]

One simple criterion for what is trustable

If the device includes a private key known by the manufacturer and not known by the customer, the device is trustable by the manufacturer and not anymore by the customer.

There are no user-friendly feature which requires such a key, and there are no way to take your right away without such a key.

--
Go Debian!

law??

i didn't know it was the duty of software writers to enforce the law.

let's look at cars. speeding is prohibited. should cardesigners make it impossible to speed?

you're not allowed to kill. should bullet makers make bullets that don't kill?

then why....

For an accurate over view on the TPM ...

... see the article at Secure Enterprise [securitypipeline.com].

License Fee

This comment alone from the BBC is worth this year's license fee. (Non-UK readers - the BBC is funded by a compulsory annual license for each household owning a tv ~150USD. You can end up in prison if you own a TV and have no license.)

It is indeed an issue of trust

I just thought I'd throw in my own $0.02 worth with a tale of my own experience.

When my brother and I were kids, there was a program on television which we both enjoyed (this would have been around 1985 or so). There was a two-part episode at the end of the first season and we taped the first part with the idea of recording the second part the next week. Well, the program was pre-empted by various things every week for the next several months (e.g. President Reagan, football, etc.). Finally, the second part was broadcast and of course, we taped it. We still have the tape (the show was cancelled in its second season). Since it does not appear that this program will ever be available on DVD or other home video format, I transferred the recorded video to DVD using my computer with TV tuner card. I made one copy for myself and one for my brother.

This incident represents what I believe will become a major problem with current copyright laws and the use of Digital Restrictions Management and Treacherous Computing. In the future, it may no longer be possible to preserve the past (the future's past) due to the short-sightedness of the content owners. Using the broadcast flag would prevent recording. Even if the recording were allowed, it would prevent me from transferring to an archival media (DVD or it's next generation, whatever that may be). New DVD burners are being made that prevent one from transferring a VHS movie with Macrovision to DVD (HP's old Carly Fiorina trumpeted this at the last CES). Instead, shows could be broadcast and disappear into the ether, never to be seen again. Of course, it could be argued that most shows broadcast today are released to DVD soon after the end of the season, but what if they are not? As an example, Malcolm in the Middle -- season 1 was released on DVD a few years ago, but where is season 2? Although this is a silly example, it illustrates why individuals have archived broadcasts in the past and should be allowed to do so in the future.

Why will I not be able (at least as the law currently stands) to buy a device that will record HDTV to the next-gen DVD format (whether that be Blu-Ray, HD-DVD, or HVD)? This would represent nothing more than the status quo as it now exists with analog TV and VCR's.

Furthermore, a principal of abandonment needs to be established in copyright law (i.e. If the content has not been sold or actively promoted for sale for a length of time, it should enter the public domain).

Trust is a two-way street. In general, I trust those who trust me. How can the public trust the content creation (recycling?) companies after they have abused our trust for so long?

PPC?

Is this technology related to the intel platforms only or is it also going to be present on PPC, Alpha, MIPS, etc? ie. is it req'd by law on every computer or is it just required on new x86s/64s?.. I'd much rather stay with ppc anyway, risc chips are way better...

In related news

Microsft Press indicated that they now have technology to enforce DRM on thr books they publish by requiring readers to use a special pair of glasses that will be permanently bolted onto their face.
The device will ensure that only the genuine reader will be able to access the content of the book by demodulating the photons emitted by the book printed using a special patented process.

Initial trials have shown the product to work well, but concurrent technology from other publishers and technology giants such as Adobe propose different optical systems, requiring a reader to be fitted with multiple layers of technology, most incompatible with each other.
"The issue", explains Adobe's DRMopt+ Chief Researcher John Begood, "is that each system is influencing the output of the other. This will be a tough one to solve, but at the moment, it's low priority as that choice is in the hands of the user."

Shares in both Microsoft Press and Adobe International hvae increase by respectively 12 and 8 percent following the annoucement.

Are they all called Bill?

This BBC article by Bill Thompson is balanced and concise

Crikey! That's a first. He normally spouts the most unbelieavable, ill-informed guff...

DRM shouldn't be allowed to work

If the market really dictates what it wants, I can't see how DRM can work without people retaliating at some point.

The real basic flaw in DRM is that it alienates legitimate users: it's harder for them to listen to their files, harder to play their games or use their software than for those who just get cracked copies.

Buy a song from iTune (btw, the phonetic pronoucination of "tune" in French is slang for "money", just thought I would share that) and it won't play on anything else than Apple software or Apple hardware. It means you get vendor lock-in as each publishing house devise its own rules about what is acceptable and what is not.
People can't buy from anyone else once they start with one a publising house; not because they don't have the illusion of choice, but because it becomes completely impractical to have more than a single, maybe two for those courageous enough, music suppliers.

2 out of 3 times when I buy a game with my hard-earned money, I run into issues when installing or trying to play it because of DRM.
You then have to spend hours in the user forums, publisher's knowledge bases or unofficial websites to find out that the game won't play because the plublisher doesn't like that particular CD-R/W in your machine or something equally studpid.

In the end, I often have to resort to a pirated copy or a crack to get the game to play on my machine. A game that I bought in its original form!

How do you think I feel after spending all that money, all that time, all that frustration trying to do the right thing because I understand that people who work on these products need to make a living?

I feel cheated, alienated, and I'm really not enclined any longer to buy a DRM product just to try it: ended the CD purchases of groups I don't know, ended the games that I might like.
But I won't download them for free either: I just don't play games anymore, and I get and pay my music from people who actually "get it", like http://www.magnatune.com/ [magnatune.com].

Older PCs value will raise ..

Older PCs will be in demand if this actually passes. Imagine a P3-800 selling for $1000. :P

The fundamental trouble with Trusted Computing

It will not work because of the fundamental flaw at the heart of the system: in order for the purchaser to view the content it has to be unlocked. Once it is unlocked then someone, somewhere, will figure out a way to make a copy of the unlocked version. And once an unlocked version leaks onto the network it will be uncontrollable.

Then we shall watch encrypted movies like peoples in Matrix. And keep unlocked version in our mind.

At least, until someone figure out how to DRM our thoughts.

Trusted computing -- Are we there yet ?

Though DRM is a vital use of Trusted Computing, I guess we should not ignore the potential of TC in other aspect like secure storage, remote attestation and process isolation. The major factor which makes people to think it is not worth what it say's it can is because of unavailability of TC enabled solutions. Not many companies are into TC and those companies who are into TC do not have a complete TC enabled solutions. Many of them does not have process isolation feature built in it. This feature must be inbuilt in the operating system. I guess we all have to wait for the M$ longhorn OS to release (provided they do it). What do you guyz say about this !!!!

Re:Article buys industry lies

Digital rights management is about controlling the data on your machine and deciding who has the rights to run it.

That data can be images, movies, mp3s or executable code...

Re:Just my opinion, but...

Well yes, you would expect this kind of behaviour from any zealot. A hygeine zealot will consider one shower a day to be a filthy neglect of your hygeine. That's the nature of a zealot so in a strange way, you're right.

The article makes some fair points about the changes in iTunes but doesn't mention the improvements. I can authorise more computers to play my Music Store tracks than I could before (it was only 3, not it's up to 5). I can stream my music over AirPort.

He does make a fair point though that it can be a slippery slope. Perhaps we need to find ways to stop companies inserting "Everything is subject change" clauses in their contracts?

Re:Article buys industry lies

Hardware security is still only as good as the software that is, ultimately, in charge of it. For the bulk of TC users that will mean Windows, and that will get be exploited as it always has been. Face it: Microsoft is looking for a hardware hack to take care of all the software hacks that are their flagship operating system. They want this for two reasons. A. to assuage all the complaints about operating system security and b. to ingratiate themselves with the media moguls. And yes, I'm sure that Trusted Computing will help make our systems less exploitable, for a time and to a certain degree. But the loss of control of our machines that the black hats will suffer will be nothing compared to what we lose if we accept this poor tradeoff. It wouldn't even be an issue, really, if those promoting Trusted Computing were subject to free market forces. They aren't though. The power of the Federal Government has been conscripted to shove it down our throats. Oh, I know ... Trusted Computing hasn't been mandated (yet.) But DRM has, and Trusted Computing is little more than an extension of that, from a conceptual standpoint. In this connected world, somebody always wants to own your machine ... it's a toss-up, in my mind, whether we're better off with the MPAA, the Office of Homeland Security, or some Bulgarian hacker. They all want a piece of us and don't much care how they get it.

What disturbs me is how easily people buy into the sound bites they're being fed every day. "Why, how can open source possibly be secure if everyone can see how it works?" "I think Trusted Computing sounds great! How else can we stop all the piracy?" And so forth. The larger issues for Americans are about Constitutionality, how far our government's authority should extend, how far foreign oligopolies can influence U.S. government and private-sector technological development ... hell, whether we can even continue to maintain a high-technology civilization and a standard of living that even approximates what we've enjoyed in the past. These are actually very important things that should concern all of us. But sometimes I feel like I'm spittin' into the wind.

Re:Let's baa like sheep (whose really juvenile?)

In short: DRM protection laws violate the constitution by both granting legislative/regulatory authority to non-congressional entities, and by denying due process of law to individuals being screwed out of perfectly legal fair use by DRM.

If you want to talk left wing.. let's talk about how DRM turns the US into a communist nation. It undermines personal property rights by placing individual's purchased property in control of centralized ownership, and puts the economy under the command of that same centralized ownership by allowing affirmative regulation of other economic sectors by content cartels.

1. Copyright establishes monopolies which are counter to capitalist tenets of fair competition. With proper scope though it is beneficial. With the current scope, however, it harms society so a wealthy few can become wealthier.

"Allowing anybody to restrict illegal copying of their materials is evil! Never mind that the GPL also limits your usage, yet it's okay, while DRM is just plain evil because it doesn't mean you get to rip people off and not pay them."

2. DRM is not evil because it prevents illegal filesharing, it is evil because, with drm protection laws preventing free market balance of end user rights, it prevents an infinity of perfectly legal fair uses without the required judicial review, and allows copyright holders to write their own copyright law, giving a private entity legislative power against the constitution.

3. I hear this "property rights" argument from copyright extremists like you all the time, but there is an overlap here between copyright law and personal property rights of individuals.
Copyright law was set up so that individual uses could only be taken away from the consumer if the rightsholder found economic incentive to do so.
Anticircumvention law protecting DRM allows copyright holders to rob the public of uses which have no economic impact on them, and without proper judicial review of copyright law to determine if they even have the right to do so.

Re:UK isn't a corporate whore like the USA

I know I'm not supposed to respond to flamebait, but...

Free speech my arse!

Copyright violation is not free speech on your part, it is merely mindless parroting of somebody else's free speech. Don't blame others if you have nothing to say and no way to say it.