MobileRead Forums - View Single Post - DRM

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%.

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%.