DRM - a hot topic around the web

Bob Russell · 03-25-2006, 12:52 PM

As we move further and further into the digital age, all kinds of content is making the move with us. Most prominantly, this includes software, books, music and video. DRM (Digital Rights Management) is the general term for technologies that allow copies to be distributed, and yet maintain control of their usage after distribution.

We all want to see technology advance, and for technology to enhance the availability and usability of content. Unfortunately, as with any topic involving large sums of money, there are some widely differing perspectives on what is the best set of laws and guidelines for DRM controls and fair usage of the materials.

In the past, say with books in a library, there were a lot of well-accepted and legally supported ways to copy portions of a book for uses like teaching. As the cost of copying books, music and videos have been reduced, we find that content owners are nervous about giving away the shop by making their content available and then finding all their customers getting it for free. That is understandable, but DRM is not the only approach to that concern. In fact, there are even studies showing that it helps sales to allow some copying of content.

And on the other side of the discussion, is usability for the consumer. In order to protect content, how far are we willing to go? Shall we track usage and put people in jail if they copy a song to put it on their iPod? And when buying a song, do you really get to keep the song to listen to , or just the right to use the one file under the exact terms allowed by the seller? And if we decide usage is controlled by the seller's terms, then the world needs to determine what kinds of "fair use" will be allowed by law. If you need to break DRM controls to save a life, is it allowed? If you buy a video, are you allowed to make a copy for a mobile device? Are you allowed to copy it for backup?

Currently, the laws are heavily in favor of the content owner, and those acting in accordance with many common views of fair use are being treated as criminals. On the one hand, there are legal battles going on in congress and the courts. On the other hand, technologists are working hard to find DRM schemes that find the optimal tradeoffs between protecting content and intellectual property, and usability and welfare for the user. (Remember that copyright law was, in the first place, supposed to be a compromise of people's rights enacted to allow a reasonable return to content providers. Not for the purpose of making the content providers rich, but to maximize the welfare of society by ensuring it is worthwhile to produce books and so forth.)

Much of the battle is a public relations battle for the mind of the masses. Unfortunately, the general public and even lawmakers only seem to be hearing loudly from the content owners, who seem to be aiming to "teach" people that breaking any DRM is always morally wrong, that copying a protected song is always criminal theft, and that content owners have a right to their full potential profits even if it means imposing heavily on the public. In fact, they want to not sell content, but even want to control usage, so that they can sell a limited and temporary right to view content.

Usage control can, in theory, be even as intrusive as saying you can only watch a show from one location with one device at a particular hour of the day, and only once, and only if viewed before a certain date! Not to mention how a DRM-protected program, for example, can often only be used on one device, so if the device is gone the program is useless.

Ultimately, the views of the public along with the lawmakers and courts will determine what sorts of fair use are considered important and reasonable. In practical terms, this will also determine how much money will be spent by consumers for the content they want (e.g. whether or not we have to pay to record a tv show), and it will determine whether or not consumers have the right to make backups or freely watch the content they buy. I don't believe that's understood yet by the general public, and hopefully the game won't be over before there is some understanding about the issues.

DRM is inherently probably neither good or bad. But we do know it's generally an imposition on the public, which is the group we are supposed to be helping with copyright law. Yet, wide-scale unauthorized distribution of content is also undesireable, both for the content owners and for the public. It's that middle ground and how to handle the tradeoff for the best interest of society that creates all the complications.

We can't provide all the answers here, but we can provide a forum for discussion and provide some of the latest talk around the web on the topic. So if this is a topic of interest to you, here's some of the more intriguing articles to have popped up recently.

* Sun To Publish Draft For Open-Source DRM Specs
Yes, open source DRM. At first it can make be confusing to think about open technology to close access to content, but it matches pretty well to the idea of open source security implementations, which is pretty well accepted.

* Lawrence Lessig talks about openDRM
One of the reader comments expresses concern about advocates misrepresenting him to say he is in favor of DRM.

* Lessig blesses DRM
The previous warning turns out to be true.

* Managing Rights Management: Gates, BBC On DRM, TV

* Don't Miss Cato vs. the DMCA. Copyfight: the politics of IP
I've only read the beginning, but it looks like a first rate report from a famous Libertarian think tank.

* USACM Policy Statement on DRM
Interesting official public policy statement from a computer scientist's professional organization. Includes statements like "In some cases, DRM technologies have been found to undermine consumers’ rights, infringe customer privacy, and damage the security of consumers’ computers." and "...DRM systems should be mechanisms for reinforcing existing legal constraints on behavior (arising from copyright law or by reasonable contract), not as mechanisms for creating new legal constraints."

* RIAA Says Ripping CDs to Your iPod is NOT Fair Use
Well yes, they did say that, but later they also said it is fair use. I guess that even the RIAA has to back down occassionally.

* Sun No breaking DRM, even if it's killing you (literally!)
Okay, I guess sometimes the RIAA won't bend after all!

Related story: DRM drains your battery by up to 25%.

rlauzon · 03-25-2006, 04:39 PM

The problem with all this is two fold. First there is what you pointed out:

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobR

Currently, the laws are heavily in favor of the content owner, and those acting in accordance with many common views of fair use are being treated as criminals.

I'll go so far as to say that the laws are way out of balance.

Now, the content owners are trying to add DRM to their content and this DRM has little to do with protecting their copyright.

This DRM they are trying to impose has to do with seizing rights that they do not have - nor have they ever had. This DRM is an attempt to lock customers into proprietary formats to control what users can do with the content.

This is like going to the store, buying a book, and finding out when you got it home that the book cannot be read in the bedroom. It's a living room book only and when you try to take it into the bedroom, the book will not open (or the pages become blank). Worse yet, over night the book you paid for gets an automatic update so that you can only read it in the living room between 8 and 10 pm GMT.

This isn't too far a stretch as eBook readers start to come out. I can see the content owners trying to put such horribly strict DRM on eBook readers.

Content owners cry "But if we don't have DRM, we won't produce content." That's a "Wolf!" cry if I ever heard it. Content that sits in a vault, unsold, unviewed is worthless. If they want to take their content and go home, that's up to them. We'll buy their content for pennies on the dollar when they declare bankruptcy.

For me, I refuse to buy DRMed content (well, DRMed content where I can't break the DRM). But that's getting harder and harder to do as content companies strong arm product companies to produce products that conform only to proprietary "standards".

A good example is a recent MP3 player I purchased - the iRiver H10 20GB.But normally it only supports Microsoft's proprietary and brain-damaged Media Transport Protocol. However, it supports USB mass storage in an emergency mode - so it has the ability to do it. But iRiver made it so you can't really turn it on.

Dick Tracy · 03-25-2006, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlauzon

Now, the content owners are trying to add DRM to their content and this DRM has little to do with protecting their copyright.

This DRM they are trying to impose has to do with seizing rights that they do not have - nor have they ever had. This DRM is an attempt to lock customers into proprietary formats to control what users can do with the content.

I have to agree. It seems to me that the consumer is being pushed into renting content and the notion of ownership is quietly being exterminated.

rmeister0 · 03-26-2006, 01:10 AM

One of the issues the content owners aren't really keen to admit in public most of the time:

I buy some music. As it happens, I went to a store today and bought Jello Biafra & Mojo Nixon: Prairie Home Invasion. Having paid for it, I expect to listen to it on my living room stereo, the computer in my office, the cd player in my car, and my iPod.

The content providers want me to pay once for the living room stereo, once for the computer, once for the iPod, and again for the car player.

More than that, they want to stick me with a charge everytime I hit the "play" button.

Pay per view makes sense for some things, like movies. (How many freakin' times can you actually watch Lord of the Rings anyway?) For music and books, it makes no freakin' sense from the customer perspective.

rmeister0 · 03-26-2006, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Ultimately, the views of the public along with the lawmakers and courts will determine what sorts of fair use are considered important and reasonable.

I wish I could believe this. I really wish I could.

But the history of the 21st century so far suggests that the public will have NO say in this whatsoever. We didn't have a say in the DMCA; I don't think this will be any different.

Snappy! · 03-26-2006, 09:28 AM

hey folks,

You know, news like this makes me want to apologize for even trying to explain that DRM is right and we should be fair to both the user and content maker / distro.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/03/23/m...oad/index.html

*sigh*

Quote:

Films will be available to download the same day the DVD is released. Consumers will get the film in three formats: two digital files available for instant download -- one for a PC or laptop and one for a portable device -- and a DVD copy sent by mail.
...
They will be priced from £19.99 ($35) for the latest releases to £9.99 ($17.50) for older films. Downloading a film will take between 40 minutes and an hour.

Oh great! Like this is going to woo the crowd. And its not as though the downloads will be available before a DVD release. So what is the impetus for consumers to rush online to buy it? *bum*

It's folks like them that makes Steve Jobs seem like a real genius!

May I quote Scar, the bad lion in Lion King, "I'm surrounded by idiots" ... is this how Steve feels?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110357/quotes

MatYadabyte · 03-26-2006, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snappy!

hey folks,
May I quote Scar, the bad lion in Lion King, "I'm surrounded by idiots" ... is this how Steve feels?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110357/quotes

All we need now is the MPAA, RIAA, BPI and the rest of the media Control Moguls to get a bit more into Hakuna Matata !

Mat

rlauzon · 03-26-2006, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snappy!

Oh great! Like this is going to woo the crowd. And its not as though the downloads will be available before a DVD release. So what is the impetus for consumers to rush online to buy it? *bum*

I saw this and laughed. Today I can take a DVD and in about 15 minutes make a video that can be put on my AV740 portable video player.

Why would I want to pay double the price for a special DVD that has the file (with DRM, so it probably won't work on my AV740) already made?

The answer is I won't.

rlauzon · 03-26-2006, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MatYadabyte

All ne need now ius the MPAA, RIAA, BPI and the rest of the media Control Moguls to get a bit more into Hakuna Matata

Definately a good compairson.

Marketroid: I know! Let's give offer them less functionality and charge them more for the product! We'll call it <put some lame sounding name here>. Consumer's will eat it up!
Exec: Yes, that sounds like a good idea. Make it so!

Later...
Consumer: WTF??! I'm not paying for that.

Later...
Exec: Why aren't sales for our <put some lame sounding name here> very good.
Marketroid: <Insert your excuse of the week based on piracy - PTP, BitTorrent, etc.>

Yes. The execs are surrounded by idiots and they don't realize it yet. Although, after the Sony malware debacle, Sony execs might have figured it out - at least somewhat.

MatYadabyte · 03-26-2006, 11:42 AM

>>>Although, after the Sony malware debacle, Sony execs might have figured it out - at least somewhat.

I'm not so sure the Execs couldn't have been aware of the magnitude of the root kit blunder

03-25-2006, 12:52 PM	#1
Bob Russell Recovering Gadget Addict Posts: 5,381 Karma: 676161 Join Date: May 2004 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Device: iPad	DRM - a hot topic around the web As we move further and further into the digital age, all kinds of content is making the move with us. Most prominantly, this includes software, books, music and video. DRM (Digital Rights Management) is the general term for technologies that allow copies to be distributed, and yet maintain control of their usage after distribution. We all want to see technology advance, and for technology to enhance the availability and usability of content. Unfortunately, as with any topic involving large sums of money, there are some widely differing perspectives on what is the best set of laws and guidelines for DRM controls and fair usage of the materials. In the past, say with books in a library, there were a lot of well-accepted and legally supported ways to copy portions of a book for uses like teaching. As the cost of copying books, music and videos have been reduced, we find that content owners are nervous about giving away the shop by making their content available and then finding all their customers getting it for free. That is understandable, but DRM is not the only approach to that concern. In fact, there are even studies showing that it helps sales to allow some copying of content. And on the other side of the discussion, is usability for the consumer. In order to protect content, how far are we willing to go? Shall we track usage and put people in jail if they copy a song to put it on their iPod? And when buying a song, do you really get to keep the song to listen to , or just the right to use the one file under the exact terms allowed by the seller? And if we decide usage is controlled by the seller's terms, then the world needs to determine what kinds of "fair use" will be allowed by law. If you need to break DRM controls to save a life, is it allowed? If you buy a video, are you allowed to make a copy for a mobile device? Are you allowed to copy it for backup? Currently, the laws are heavily in favor of the content owner, and those acting in accordance with many common views of fair use are being treated as criminals. On the one hand, there are legal battles going on in congress and the courts. On the other hand, technologists are working hard to find DRM schemes that find the optimal tradeoffs between protecting content and intellectual property, and usability and welfare for the user. (Remember that copyright law was, in the first place, supposed to be a compromise of people's rights enacted to allow a reasonable return to content providers. Not for the purpose of making the content providers rich, but to maximize the welfare of society by ensuring it is worthwhile to produce books and so forth.) Much of the battle is a public relations battle for the mind of the masses. Unfortunately, the general public and even lawmakers only seem to be hearing loudly from the content owners, who seem to be aiming to "teach" people that breaking any DRM is always morally wrong, that copying a protected song is always criminal theft, and that content owners have a right to their full potential profits even if it means imposing heavily on the public. In fact, they want to not sell content, but even want to control usage, so that they can sell a limited and temporary right to view content. Usage control can, in theory, be even as intrusive as saying you can only watch a show from one location with one device at a particular hour of the day, and only once, and only if viewed before a certain date! Not to mention how a DRM-protected program, for example, can often only be used on one device, so if the device is gone the program is useless. Ultimately, the views of the public along with the lawmakers and courts will determine what sorts of fair use are considered important and reasonable. In practical terms, this will also determine how much money will be spent by consumers for the content they want (e.g. whether or not we have to pay to record a tv show), and it will determine whether or not consumers have the right to make backups or freely watch the content they buy. I don't believe that's understood yet by the general public, and hopefully the game won't be over before there is some understanding about the issues. DRM is inherently probably neither good or bad. But we do know it's generally an imposition on the public, which is the group we are supposed to be helping with copyright law. Yet, wide-scale unauthorized distribution of content is also undesireable, both for the content owners and for the public. It's that middle ground and how to handle the tradeoff for the best interest of society that creates all the complications. We can't provide all the answers here, but we can provide a forum for discussion and provide some of the latest talk around the web on the topic. So if this is a topic of interest to you, here's some of the more intriguing articles to have popped up recently. * Sun To Publish Draft For Open-Source DRM Specs Yes, open source DRM. At first it can make be confusing to think about open technology to close access to content, but it matches pretty well to the idea of open source security implementations, which is pretty well accepted. * Lawrence Lessig talks about openDRM One of the reader comments expresses concern about advocates misrepresenting him to say he is in favor of DRM. * Lessig blesses DRM The previous warning turns out to be true. * Managing Rights Management: Gates, BBC On DRM, TV * Don't Miss Cato vs. the DMCA. Copyfight: the politics of IP I've only read the beginning, but it looks like a first rate report from a famous Libertarian think tank. * USACM Policy Statement on DRM Interesting official public policy statement from a computer scientist's professional organization. Includes statements like "In some cases, DRM technologies have been found to undermine consumers’ rights, infringe customer privacy, and damage the security of consumers’ computers." and "...DRM systems should be mechanisms for reinforcing existing legal constraints on behavior (arising from copyright law or by reasonable contract), not as mechanisms for creating new legal constraints." * RIAA Says Ripping CDs to Your iPod is NOT Fair Use Well yes, they did say that, but later they also said it is fair use. I guess that even the RIAA has to back down occassionally. * Sun No breaking DRM, even if it's killing you (literally!) Okay, I guess sometimes the RIAA won't bend after all! Related story: DRM drains your battery by up to 25%.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Unutterably Silly Corrupt-A-Topic (anymore off-topic and it would be on-topic)	RWood	Lounge	6227	08-18-2023 10:58 PM
Classic B&N made it on msnbc's hot topic	Mitzasuro	Barnes & Noble NOOK	0	09-28-2010 08:38 PM
E-books a hot topic at next Consumer Electronics Show	Kris777	News	12	09-13-2009 09:20 PM
E-books a hot topic at next Consumer Electronics Show	sforce	News	0	09-03-2009 05:19 PM

03-26-2006, 01:10 AM	#4
rmeister0 Addict Posts: 270 Karma: 298 Join Date: Mar 2005	One of the issues the content owners aren't really keen to admit in public most of the time: I buy some music. As it happens, I went to a store today and bought Jello Biafra & Mojo Nixon: Prairie Home Invasion. Having paid for it, I expect to listen to it on my living room stereo, the computer in my office, the cd player in my car, and my iPod. The content providers want me to pay once for the living room stereo, once for the computer, once for the iPod, and again for the car player. More than that, they want to stick me with a charge everytime I hit the "play" button. Pay per view makes sense for some things, like movies. (How many freakin' times can you actually watch Lord of the Rings anyway?) For music and books, it makes no freakin' sense from the customer perspective.

03-26-2006, 11:42 AM	#10
MatYadabyte Zealot Posts: 111 Karma: 1013536 Join Date: Aug 2005	>>>Although, after the Sony malware debacle, Sony execs might have figured it out - at least somewhat. I'm not so sure the Execs couldn't have been aware of the magnitude of the root kit blunder

Advert

Advert