So how do you REALLY feel about DRM?
There is greater evil than DRM, and I have mostly tolerated it up to this point
6% (81 votes)
I am very opposed to DRM, but I have been known to purchase some "locked" material
28% (372 votes)
I am vehemently opposed to DRM, and have never bought a single piece of DRM-controlled material
51% (689 votes)
Who cares anyway, DRM's days are numbered.
15% (197 votes)
Total votes: 1339
- Fun with ethtool
- Parallel Programming with NVIDIA CUDA
- Readers' Choice Awards 2011
- 100% disappointed with the decision to go all digital.
- Linux-Based X Terminals with XDMCP
- Validate an E-Mail Address with PHP, the Right Way
- You Need A Budget
- The Linux powered LAN Gaming House
- Why Python?
- Python for Android
- Employment Posters
3 hours 38 min ago - Sure the best distro is
4 hours 59 min ago - BeOS was the best
7 hours 42 min ago - I use Wireshark on a daily
12 hours 13 min ago - buena información
17 hours 20 min ago - One important "bucket" that I didn't note (désolé si qqun deja d
18 hours 20 min ago - Gnome3 is such a POS. No one
1 day 3 hours ago - Gnome 3 is the biggest POS
1 day 3 hours ago - I didn't knew this thing by
1 day 10 hours ago - Author's reply
1 day 13 hours ago
Comments
DRM
Drm only keeps idiots from sharing digital media. anyone with half a brain and a little creativity can bypass it and have access to huge amounts of "free media"(thank you spiral frog)
Yes, but illegal copying *is* wrong
You're right, anyone with half a brain can get access to "free" content. No question. That's why sites like the Pirate Bay exist. But my Dad is a professional musician, so there's no way I can agree with illegal copying like this.
This is also why I am totally against "pirating" closed systems like MS Windows or Mac OS X. You need to respect those copyrights; if you want it, then buy it, straight up. Of course, if you don't want to pay that money (if that's what it's about for you), there are several alternatives. A GNU/Linux distro like Ubuntu or Mandriva is an excellent choice.
Look, the opposition to DRM isn't so that you can break the law. It's to preserve the fair-use provisions in existing law. It's so that you can enjoy your legally bought music/movies in your car, at home, on your portable music player, etc. like we have done for decades. Remember, in the LP/cassette days, you could play your music on *any* turntable or cassette deck. The same applies to Compact Discs of today, which is why CD's remain so popular. It's why the MP3 format remains so popular today (plays on anything) and why Ogg Vorbis/Theora are increasing in popularity.
*That* is why we oppose DRM.
--TP
Misintrepreting Copyright
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html
"Something strange and dangerous is happening in copyright law. Under the U.S. Constitution, copyright exists to benefit users — those who read books, listen to music, watch movies, or run software — not for the sake of publishers or authors. Yet even as people tend increasingly to reject and disobey the copyright restrictions imposed on them “for their own benefit,” the U.S. government is adding more restrictions, and trying to frighten the public into obedience with harsh new penalties."
"When the U.S. Constitution was drafted, the idea that authors were entitled to a copyright monopoly was proposed — and rejected. The founders of our country adopted a different premise, that copyright is not a natural right of authors, but an artificial concession made to them for the sake of progress. The Constitution gives permission for a copyright system with this paragraph (Article I, Section 8):"
"The copyright system works by providing privileges and thus benefits to publishers and authors; but it does not do this for their sake. Rather, it does this to modify their behavior: to provide an incentive for authors to write more and publish more. In effect, the government spends the public's natural rights, on the public's behalf, as part of a deal to bring the public more published works. Legal scholars call this concept the “copyright bargain.” It is like a government purchase of a highway or an airplane using taxpayer's money, except that the government spends our freedom instead of our money."
Don't like it? Then don't buy it!
There's a few things to understand when dealing with DRM. When you buy a DVD, you are buying certain rights related to how you can use the information on that DVD. DRM is what they are attempting to use to enforce those rights, so you do not get more than what you paid for. You did not buy the right to make unlimited or some arbitrary number of copies to give out to your friends or family, to sell, put on some file-sharing system, or possibly not even to make backups of it. That is the implied agreement (contract) when you purchase most DRM "protected" material. You are purchasing the rights to play the material on your own property, and that's about it. There might be laws that "protect" the consumer's "rights", by saying the consumer can make a single backup or whatever, but those are completely unnecessary. If people really want to be able to make backups, and the companies aren't willing to sell you the rights to make backups at a reasonable price (free?), then don't buy it from them. Do you really need their product anyways?
Now, I think DRM's days are numbered, since it's obvious that it's always cracked. People will always find a way around DRM, and it only takes one person to find their way around it for it to become shared online with anyone else, or to share the method of cracking it with anyone else. It's a big, and very expensive, cat and mouse game that the big media companies will eventually realize they can't win, and are just wasting money.
The bottom line is that if you don't want to deal with DRM, then don't buy products "protected" with DRM. DRM stands for Digital Rights Management, and it's about managing their rights, not yours. Your rights to the material are limited to what you agreed to when purchasing the material. If you failed to misunderstand those rights, then that's your own fault for not making sure of what they are before your purchased them. If they didn't make them clear to you, then don't buy them, or inquire as to what they are specifically.
Hopefully no one takes this as a pro-DRM comment, because I think DRM is nothing but a lose-lose situation for everyone involved. As a libertarian, I have no problem with a company trying to enforce the rights it sold to it's customers, and if they want to try to do it in a wasteful, ineffective way, that's their choice, and if you want to buy it, that's your choice. What right do I have to limit their product or your purchases in any way?
You are missing a few things...
I agree with you that consumers should not buy what they do not want. That's pretty safe to say.
But consumers are not in a position to refuse: First, no DVD or copy restricted VHS tape says there is DRM. It's not a great selling point, so why put it on the box. Second, you will be hard pressed to find a film (definition limited to those shown in theaters) today that is not released with DRM. It is not like there is an alternative. Third, it is illegal, through new laws like DCMA, to by-pass the copy restrictions. So, even though there is Fair Use laws, it is still illegal to make a legal backup copy, when doing so by-passes electronic restrictions.
So what is the alternative? Apparently, over fifty percent of Linux Journal readers simply refuse to purchase or to rent any DVDs at all. Yeah... Well, more realistically, most Linux Journal readers probably do purchase the DRM media and then by-pass the restrictions and risk prosecution. Admittedly, there is a low probability of a search and seizure occurring at a typical Linux Journal reader's home, but it is still giving these folks the feeling of being outlaws when it comes to using their media, as specified by Fair Use laws.
Funny thing is that it is likely a typical Linux Journal reader who is implementing these complex technological restrictions. Everyone reading this has it in their power to either use and break these restrictive systems or, instead, use and build new media distribution systems based on open formats. It's really just a matter of choice.
A couple of problems with your otherwise interesting thesis here
You've written an interesting treatise here, and I agree, if you don't like the conditions, then don't buy the product. And no, I don't take your post as a "pro-DRM" position at all. Matter of fact, it sounds like you don't like it one bit.
However, there are a few important issues of law that didn't get covered. I'll stick to US law, since that's where I live.
1.) It isn't a contract that you "agree to" when you purchase the DVD or whatever. You're thinking of a click-through software EULA. Rather, it is federal copyright law that says that you will not make copies and distribute them without the copyright holder's permission. That's why you see that famous "FBI Warning" when you watch the movie, and that's been true since the VCR days.
2.) You're correct, you purchased the right to view the movie on your own property. That includes, by definition, your own DVD player. So, what if your DVD player is in your computer (also your property) running a Free Software OS, e. g. GNU/Linux? You're not trying to make a copy of it here, remember. You simply want to watch the movie. So, the DVD publisher is, here, attempting to prevent you from exercising your legal right to watch the movie on your legally purchased DVD player--a right for which you just paid them good money. Whoops....
3.) Nowhere on any of my DVD's or their cases (e. g. The Matrix Reloaded, My Cousin Vinny) does it specify what specific type of DVD player or software that I must use to watch the movie contained on that DVD. Nowhere. It does say that illegal copying is prohibited, with which I wholeheartedly agree. But again, we're talking about merely *watching* the movie, not copying it! That's a critical point right there.
This is why "DVD Jon" Johansen was acquitted even after the movie studios threw so much money and effort behind trying to get him convicted. He simply wanted to watch his movies on his GNU/Linux box. That's all. Furthermore, while he did make archival backups to his hard disk of several of these movies (both Norwegian and US law let you do that), the investigation found that he had bought and paid for each one of those DVD's. It was at that point that the judge said, "there's no 'piracy' here," and he was acquitted. The acquittal was upheld on appeal.
So, we're not talking about making illegal copies here. We're simply talking about the ability to watch a movie on your own DVD player.
And yes, it really is "Digital Restrictions Management."
--TP
Vehemently opposed to DRM
"DRM" stands for "Digital Restrictions Management" for a reason. It's because that's what it is. It sure doesn't preserve any "rights" of mine.
I'm one of the "vehemently opposed to DRM" folks. And in fact, I had not bought a DVD for exactly the reason of CSS. This was until "DVD Jon" came along and liberated us from that evil. This is especially an issue for folks whose only DVD players are in their computers. I see no valid reason why I should be prevented from watching my legally purchased DVD--bought and paid for--on my GNU/Linux computer using Free Software.
Unless the DRM can be easily cracked, like today's DVD's, I won't touch it. Record companies, take note: your DRM will continue to get cracked. You will never win, because any lock eventually gets broken. It's like the copy protection schemes of 25 years ago--you're fighting a losing battle.
--TP
Copy-protected floppies
The difference now is that some IP owners make it clear that they can (and will!) punish me for handing over my money by shutting down their DRM servers on a whim. I haven't purchased DRM-protected media in years, and am unlikely to do so ever again.
I can't honestly say I've never bought DRM-controlled material, though. From "uncopyable" floppies and red-ink-on-red-paper copy protection schemes in Sim City, to region-coded DVDs, it's been Hobson's choice for decades. Instead, I voted that DRM's days are numbered, even though the "who cares" part hardly applies. We'd better care if we want that hope to become a reality.
DRM is a reality.
DRM has come to a head in recent days. As reported in this week's Search Engine, there is a class action lawsuit against Electronic Arts over DRM in their newest game - Spore.
Sadly, it is something that we seem to be afflicted with, whether or not you like it or have a choice (a la the DVD issue). I would argue that it is something we are going to have to continue to live with as more and more "stuff" is controlled through some form of it. After all, almost every piece of purchased software has some form of DRM associated with it and there are very few of us that can work in technology without having to deal with it. As strong as the Open Source community is and has grown, the players that have shareholders to answer to (although there are fewer of those this morning than yesterday) are still more powerful and still have to show a profit. And as long as money is king, DRM will be a fact of life.
Want an even scarier option? Take a look at the bill introduced into the Canadian Parliament just before the government was dissolved on copyright. DRM has NOTHING on that.
David Lane, KG4GIY is a member of Linux Journal's Editorial Advisory Panel and the Control Op for Linux Journal's Virtual Ham Shack
DVDs are a gray area
I'm one of the vehemently opposed who has "never" bought any DRM'd content.
As for DVDs, okay, I've bought a few... really, *very* few. But only since the cracking of their DRM schemes has allowed me to assert my right to really use what I paid for. Yes, it would be better not to put money in the pockets of the enemies of my freedom, who turn around and use that money to bribe my congress-whores to pass laws like the DMCA. But that's exactly why I buy almost no DVDs, and haven't set foot in a Hollywood movie theater in many years.
I absolutely won't touch Blu-ray, nor the literally defective-by-design Vista, and I laugh at the chumps who bought digital music from Prays-for-Sure, Yahoo, and now Wal-Mart, only to learn the truth about DRM by getting burned.
Material which is encumbered by DRM which does not honor all fair-use rights and remove itself upon expiration of copyright, should not be eligible for copyright protection.
Oh, really?
55% of the voters "have never bought a single piece of DRM-controlled material" -- so they have never purchased or paid to borrow a film on DVD, with the Content Scrambling System (CSS) and the region codes. Unlikely.
Skeptical about these first 122 votes.
".... that I can't crack."
There needs to be another option; I won't and have never bought any media or content with DRM protection unless I had some way of bypassing the DRM. I held off buying any kind of DVD player until libdvdcss was mainstream and I was sure that I could practically, not just theoretically, play and/or copy DVDs in Linux.
I don't mind buying regular DVDs now days because plain CSS is completely bypassed and doesn't bother me at all. I still won't buy 'Copy Controlled' (nonstandard) DVDs or CDs though.
I haven't.
I haven't bought/rented anything with DRM on it because I haven't purchased new media in a decade, but it's only partly because of the DRM. It's more that I never find anything new that's appealing enough to justify paying what the industry demands for them in any form!
If I did want to own a copy of something recent, I'd use one of those point-based free trading networks. That way, no money goes to the RIAA/MPAA in the event I pay a few dollars for points if nobody wanted my stuff, and it routes music/movies to potentially low-income people (like me) rather than having them wasted adding to our landfill.
The one thing I have bought new in the past decade, in terms of music or videos, has been two DRM-free independent-label CDs by a favorite musical artist at a small promo tour stop. She got a better share of the revenue (from what I've read), I got enjoyable discs I could back up easily, and the price wasn't as steep.
By the way...
It's spelled "vehemently."
oops
Yeah.. usually I know that... lol.
Katherine Druckman is webmistress at LinuxJournal.com. You might find her on Twitter or at the Southwest Drupal Summit