Criminalizing The Consumer - Where DRM Went Wrong 75
][nTrUdEr writes "The Economist has posted an editorial on how DRM has gone wrong. What ostensibly began as a tool to ensure artists received due compensation for their work has been turned, and now criminalizes the consumer for wanting to use what they have purchased. 'Despite the number of iTunes downloaded for a fee, Apple would be in trouble if people were prevented from transferring legitimately owned CDs to their iPods. The software Apple gives away to iPod customers is designed to let them do just that. Most people think it ludicrous that they can't do the same with the DVDs they own. Now it seems, despite squeals from the movie industry, the law is finally moving in the video fan's favour. The issue in the recent case was whether Kaleidescape, a maker of digital "jukeboxes" that store a person's video and music collections and distribute the entertainment around the home, had breached the terms of the DVD Content Control Association's CSS (content scrambling system) license.'"
License (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
But they are not suing you, they are suing Kaleidoscope.
(Not too say they are justified)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately you are.
I have already entered into a "license" for this media through a little thing called copyright law.
And copyright law is getting worse and worse for the consumer. Remember that law is all about interpretation. Some people used to interpret Jim Crow laws as perfectly constitutional and legally OK.
Re:License (Score:5, Interesting)
Not yet you're not. The media companies have yet to receive any court judgements which strip away right of first sale and fair use. Just laws that act to impede such things like the DCMA and it's exported derivatives around the world.
Yes, but hopefully the pendulum in the courts has started to swing back to a more moderating influence.
Someone needs to remind the content companies that treating your customers like criminals, and impeding everything they do isn't going to get you more customers, it's going to get you less. And, graciously offering to give us our rights back in a roundabout way isn't the way to do it.
They buy all of these laws which, on the surface, are intended to stop the widespread commercial exploitation of people selling counterfeit items. But, it has the effect of not reducing piracy at all, and attempting to remove the rights of the average consumer to use the thing they've bought.
They're also trying to argue the line you seem to be buying into -- that when you buy a physical product (a DVD or a CD) that you're entering into a contractually binding obligation to only do what they like with it. That, is completely untrue, and I hope it stays that way.
Cheers
Re:License (Score:4, Insightful)
The only thing differentiating DVDs from the CD situation is the encryption, which in truth only provides thin legal protection to the media in question, it has absolutely no effect on preventing copies (we all know what made CSS weak).
Having said all that, I think that none of these groups really intend to stop copying. The artificial barrier to copying is a welcome side effect, however I think its original and continued purpose is to restrict your ability to use media, not your ability to copy it.
I think the media industry is trying to enable a business model wherein you must purchase media rights for each device you intend to use, so called "Viewing Rights". Of course there are a number of executives who want to fight piracy simply for a refusal to admit defeat, but I think a majority of these companies and the officers in charge of them are more interested in maximizing financial return on the products they sell to the public, by changing the business model from a universal media purchase, to one of individual device rights. While the current HD-DVD and Blu-ray systems don't appear to contain this sort of individualization, it is present in every other form of digital media currently in use, and probably will be in any future system from now on.
maximizing profits (Score:2)
the officers in charge of them are more interested in maximizing financial return on the products they sell to the public, by changing the business model from a universal media purchase, to one of individual device rights.
The problem with this is it does not maximize profits. By requiring people to pay for every item they want to play music or movies on they are discouraging people from buying to begin with. I used to buy a lot of music however I rarely even listen to it now. Lately though I've been t
Re:License (Score:5, Interesting)
No, you're NOT. RIAA and MPAA members fully recognize this in their advertising. When a movie comes out on DVD, they don't say "license Narnia on DVD today" they say "Own Narnia on DVD today" and ditto for CDs.
It is a commodity product; just as with a book, when you buy it, you OWN it. It does come with some limited restrictions, e.g., you cannot make and distribute copies (in full or in part) outside of the Fair Use clause exceptions, but you absolutely, positively do own it.
Re: (Score:2)
And what of the DRM on XP and Vista? Change your machine once too often... someone steals your codes (or generates them using a hacking tool)... next time your OS has a hissy fit, Microsoft might refuse to re-activate it, leaving all your software and data high and dry.
If you buy XP or Vista, or any other software package that claims the right to "revoke" your ability to use it, you're directly supporting DRM.
DRM is intellectual and social poison.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Funny, I wasn't aware that they were albums or movies."
Crap, and here I was all set to sit down and watch their computer-generated special effects!!
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, I wasn't aware that the only way to abuse a customer was with music or video.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but it IS a commodity good, not a work for hire under contract, and as such, right of first sale applies; NOT licensing. You are still bound by Copyright Law so this doesn't mean you get to buy one copy and install it on 30,000 computers in an enterprise, but legally, you CAN hack and modify it, you CAN bypass all the DRM you want, you CAN delete it, you CAN remove that copy from one PC and install it on another PC. If you modify it you might not be
Re: (Score:2)
If you tell them that, they will force us to read EULA's at the point of sale and sign contracts in blood!
Re: (Score:1)
Have a nice day
-------------------
Disclaimer: The notice contained in this
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(i) it violates consumer protection laws or
(ii) it commits you to colluding in anti comptitive restrive practices
Re: (Score:1)
When I buy an album or a movie, I am not buying a "license." I am not agreeing to anything. I am not bending to the will of anyone's "license," I am not signing anything, I am not entering a contract, I am not forfeiting anything, waiving anything, and I am not compromising anything. I am buying a copy of some physical medium for my own enjoyment, and at that point I own that copy of that medium. I have already entered into a "license" for this media through a little thing called copyright law. Anything beyond the application of this copyright law, which includes fair use clauses for a very good reason, is bullshit. Pure and simple.
I agree. By the way I bought my first song from Apple just a few days ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:License you need to Read More. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Very simple... (Score:5, Insightful)
Trust consumers, eliminate DRM and sue the pants off of illegal file sharers. Yes, that means college students, nine-year-olds, cancer patients, single mothers and everyone else. Yes, that means some small percentage of erroneous accusations.
That's the solution, not some goofball schemes to turn the whole entertainment industry into street mimes.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems the industry prefers equilibria to standard plans of action
Re: (Score:2)
Go fuck yourself (Score:2)
Making the legal product worse... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what annoys me about pretty much all forms of DRM - the anti-piracy measures ultimately make the pirated version simply better than the legal version.
With Windows, the pirated version removed the annoying "phone home" feature that Microsoft uses to ensure the product is legit. With computer games, it prevents the stupid "CD in the drive" requirement just to play a game that's using 8GB of hard drive space. With movies, it allows watchers to skip the stupid previews and FBI warning and jump straight to the actual content.
Ultimately DRM punishes those who would purchase the media legally, and makes the pirated version just that much more attractive. Why should I pay $20 for a DVD when a free rip offers better usability?
I'm more than willing to pay for content. I just don't want to have to put up with all the brain-dead restrictions placed on it solely because I'm foolish enough to actually attempt to support the content creators. For the love of common sense, make the legal product at the very least almost as good as the pirated version, instead of substantially worse!
And please, please stop demanding that people who paid for the game have to use the CD in PC games. That alone is enough to push me to find the no-CD cracks. I shouldn't have to turn to pirates to make my purchases worthwhile!
Re:Making the legal product worse... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The majority of the support you give goes to the distributors, not the creators, and therein lies the problem.
The Economist... get it (Score:3, Insightful)
Put it this way, if you are arguing with the business and can say "The economist said" its going to be a million times better that wired/slashdot/any computing mag you can think of.
Politically its "liberal" in the traditional sense of the word (i.e. slightly right wing and think the government should keep out of our lives)
Mark me up, mark me down, its a class magazine.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Sorry, I *THINK* my karma can take the hit (ducks)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No offense, but: You need to get out of the US more often.
The Economist's research and analysis is the best in journalism today, but its editorial stance is most decidedly not liberal. It has little tolerance for many of the things liberalism holds dear, and if anything aligns more with centrist conservative philosophy than anything else[*]. That s
Re:The Economist... get it (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
They regularly describe themselves as liberal in the editorials and articles, particularly around individual's freedom and economic policy. Basic tennets of liberalism [stanford.edu] match pretty well to what the economist stands for IMO. This isn't woolly liberalism of a wet blanket kind, its the direct "torture is wrong, restriction of liberty is wrong, government interf
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The Economist's research and analysis is the best in journalism today, but its editorial stance is most decidedly not liberal. It has little tolerance for many of the things liberalism holds dear, and if anything aligns more with centrist conservative philosophy than anything else[*]. That said, they do occasionally see the value of government intervention in things, but if that's how you define liberalism
Actually Liberals [wikipedia.org] were those who wanted not big government but small government and believed in capi
Re: (Score:2)
Put it this way, if you are arguing with the business and can say "The economist said" its going to be a million times better that wired/slashdot/any computing mag you can think of.
I like reading "The Economist" [economist.com] myself. However because I only read one maybe two compleat issues a month and it's a weekly I don't subscribe.
FalconRe: (Score:2)
You mean like when they use the word "iTunes" when they really mean "songs"?
Re: (Score:2)
With apologies to Douglas Adams (Score:5, Funny)
Some More of DRM's Greatest Mistakes, Well That About Wraps It Up [userfriendly.org] for DRM, and What Is This DRM Shit Anyway?
Only 9 years (Score:5, Interesting)
Just as we have been clamoring for geek involvement in patent review, we should be clamoring for geek involvement in legislation review. Geeks can a) forsee future applications of technology and b) find potential bugs due to the similarity of rigidity and logic between law and code (see comments such as mine [slashdot.org] attached to Source Control For Bills In Congress? [slashdot.org]).
9 years. 9 years of prosecution. 9 years of our EFF dollars wasted having to fight this.
Re:Only 9 years (Score:5, Insightful)
Think of it instead as a group of motivated people, aware of the slippery slope that was approaching, taking action to prevent it from becoming firmly entrenched.
If those 9 years of battle hadn't been fought, and instead people lay down and accept it until it was too late to fight it, we'd then experience.. who knows? how many years of locked down content and bland crap produced by the people rich enough to pay licensing fees.
Once a system becomes widely used and mostly accepted, it's difficult if not impossible to change it, no matter how heinous, illegal, or rights-infringing. That these 9 years were marked by a battle against that is something to be proud of.
One could argue it's a battle that should never have been fought, which is true, but there will always be someone or some corporation willing to push the limits of rights and ethics to make a buck. The battle never ends.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Kaleidescape vs. the Others (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is funny, because it's probably one of the most locked down, secured DVD movie servers out there. Other similar servers use DeCSS (they just tell the end users where to download it, so the manufacturer isn't doing anything *illegal*), and they have their movies stored in Windows folders that can easily be accessed and shared with anyone on the network. That's right, they went after the company that had the most MPAA/DVDCCA friendly product possible, and let the other guys with lesser products get by on "illegal" software.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly what the case was about, there's a zillion solutions to copy DVDs but none endorsed by the DVDCCA.
Other similar servers use DeCSS (they just tell the end users where to download it, so the manufacturer isn't doing anything *illegal*)
Based on the Grokster ruling, I wouldn't bet on that. If they point users to DeCSS, if they advertise features you don't get without breaking the DMCA, if they encourage
Re: (Score:2)
The problem (Score:5, Informative)
I usually explain the current problem with reconciling creative incentive with no natural scarcities as a fable. Imagine a berry bush that has very, very tasty berries, but is excruciatingly difficult to grow. The farmer has to spend hundreds of man hours raising the bush, and cannot hold another job while doing so. The owner of the bush decides to hire 5 armed men to guard the bush, and sell baskets of berries for 5 dollars a piece, until they are gone. We call this capitalism. The owner pays for the cost of raising the bush and the guards, and profit goes towards his livelihood. If there were no guards, and looting of the bush happened, the owner is out of a bush, economic opportunity, and probably a livelihood. Looting causes an inefficient distribution of resources. Communism would look similarly, but the farmer would have doled out the berries equally to who wanted them, for the cost of a generally collected (taxed) stipend, from everyone who did and did not want them.
Now, imagine if that bush never ran out of berries. Sure, people might get tired of the berries, or they might not like berries. But you get two interesting problems. First, if the farmer keeps selling berries, he makes unlimited money. That drops his costs to nearly zero. Second, if he's looted, he is not out of berries to sell. He is only out of the opportunity to sell the berries. Capitalism doesn't protect your demand, only the physical property you have to sell. Sure, eating gobs and gobs of berries means that those people are now full on berries and have no interest in buying, but maybe everyone didn't anyway. Law does not regulate demand.
The farmer who owns the unlimited berry bush does not need guards to prevent the stealing of property, he needs them to protect his demand. If he left the bush unattended overnight, he does not lose property, he only loses demand. If modern capitalism is to be remodeled to include protection of demand, you quickly find that you can't write a negative review of a product, or change your tastes, as well as similar problems, since you have damaged demand for a creators product.
And this is the problem with DRM. DRM are the armed guards at the unlimited berry bush. This is NOT the most efficient method of distribution. The most efficient method would collect enough money for farmers to have incentive to grow a bush, but would not prevent the widest distribution of berries possible (everyone who wants one). Plain and simple, no current economic model satisfies perfectly.
You can make arguments that theater seats are a scarcity now, and good movie experiences can be used to generate profit and motivation. But when the day comes of very, very cheap home theaters, you have to shift the model again. Concerts are better, and could save the music model, but apart from plays, this is really a difficult problem for big-budget movies. Not allowing unlimited distribution is very inefficient, as is not compensating the creator. Truly, it's a curse of riches.
There, you get a class lecture for free, without DRM.
Re: (Score:1)
OK I'm kidding, and thanks for the clear and thoughtful explanation.
mod parent up (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Intellectual property does exist in capitalism: it is property.
The problem here is that a group of companies related to the distribution of a good are not finding a way to compete with the internet and the digital culture. They
Re: (Score:2)
People who advocate the 'free distribution' of anything stored in electronic form, should try runn
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, the problem is thinking in terms of products, rather than solutions[1]. I'm going to talk about software first for a bit.
No one ever thinks 'I need some software now.' People think 'I have a problem that needs solving.' That problem might be creating a nicely formatted letter, or managing inventory for a chain of supermarkets. In either case, the thing they are willing to pay for is not the software, it is the solution to the problem. If you are trying to sell them software, you will not get very
A few things (Score:1)
No. The problem is a loss of demand. Theft occurs when the finite berries are taken. Loss of demand happens when the infinite berries are taken. It's analogous to entering a saturated market- don't expect windfall profits.
Isn't that exactly the problem as described? If there is no way to model the scarcity, the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You talk about free riders, and how every market has them. I agree, and it's true that content producers naturally assume the worst when it comes to the effects of free riding. However, what is new is the increible ease with which people can free ride. People on
Congratulations on your degree! (Score:1)
Good points, but I want to address Firefly. That was certainly a failure of the market, but not due to piracy. Everyone I know, including my geriatric parents, my wife, and my kid, adore the show. Most everyone bought a copy of the boxed set. However, they only found out after the show was canceled (and a few years at that). That was a failure to capture a market. However, the market wasn't turning to piracy at the time, it was because nobo
Re: (Score:2)
What you are describing isn't just DRM; it's copyright itself. DRM is just a new twist on it, to try to create scarcity without a government-granted monopoly (although laws like DMCA blur the whole "without government" issue). But the point of both
Close (Score:1)
Not really. Copyright didn't actually STOP people from stealing from the bush. Government enforcement meant that the guards would occasionally smack someone on the head if they took too many berries, or tried to resell the berries right in front of them. Technically you are right, copyright enforcement was supposed to stop copying like DRM is, however it did not function that way in reality. I'd love to do research on models as we'd like th
Yawn (Score:2)
Jobs on DRM (Score:5, Interesting)
* It doesn't work.
* It's too easily cracked, and patching the DRM software to stop cracks is a losing battle.
* The RIAA sell the very same music unprotected on CDs anyway(!!!!!!)
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/ [apple.com]
Anything that causes Macrovision stock to crash has to be a good thing.
you forgot one (Score:2, Insightful)
The lable at the same time released it in 12" vinyl DRM free !!!!!
Seems silly to have used DRM on the disk in the end.
Why don't they just say it? (Score:2)
Why don't they just say that? Stupid phrases like "criminalizes the consumer for wanting to use what they have purchased" are besides the point.
Yep, lack of due process is what's DRM is about (Score:2)
The framers of the US Constitution thought this was so important, that they put it right into the document. This is one of the few enumerated purposes of Congress, and yet this power has ended up in other hands.
What a load of crap (Score:1)
Whether or not piracy is a real economic impact, people are still "booleging" music.
You people need to stop rewriting history. If any has been criminalized its the rightful owners of the music.
Re: (Score:2)
Correction: you don't own the rights to the song, but you bloody well own that particular copy. Go read up on how First Sale is codified in all copyright treaties and legislation around the world.
How many times do we have to rehash this topic until morons like you get it?
MartRe: (Score:1)
While you do not own the rights to distribute the music you do own that particular copy and your rights extend past the media it is contained upon. You need to read a bit on First Sale and Fair Use.
Wabi-Sabi
Matthew
Re: (Score:1)