Pan Macmillan: DRM Is Not Evil

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by tompe

But it is not free to distribute a key and I am not sure you can do a key for all locks that you can pick. And the content in a house cannot be duplicated. So I do not see that this is a relevant comparison.

It is relevant to the extent that some security is still available even if some people can break in or break the code. Most people either won't know how or won't want to violate the law. The consequences of breaking it are, of course, different.

[Alfy]

Originally Posted by LazyScot

People have talked about using RFIDs to do that, albeit electronically and without you being aware (and/or using that to charge you for goods when you leave the store).

I guess I might sound silly asking this and might go off topic, but pray tell me, what is RFID? (somehow, I'm pretty sure it's gonna be something I hate...)

[Icarusbop]

Originally Posted by Alfy

I guess I might sound silly asking this and might go off topic, but pray tell me, what is RFID? (somehow, I'm pretty sure it's gonna be something I hate...)

Your right it is - It stand for Radio Frequeny Identification.
They are little chips that use no batteries, and when they receive a certain signal, they respond by transmitting a very long serial number. sounds harmless eh? They are already broadly in use, mostly without your knowing about them, for the full horror story on the erosion of your privacy look here.

http://www.spychips.com/

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

and there is no lock that is unpickable therefore locks are trying to solve a problem that is unsolvable. Do you lock your house? Why?

Dale

Locks on your house and DRM are solving completely different problems. That's not a very good analogy.

The reason DRM is unsolvable is because in the house locks example, the house owner and the burglar are the same person. If that were true, then house locks would also be just as useless.

DRM is trying to prevent you from robbing your own home. That's why it's an unsolvable problem.

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Locks on your house and DRM are solving completely different problems. That's not a very good analogy.

The reason DRM is unsolvable is because in the house locks example, the house owner and the burglar are the same person. If that were true, then house locks would also be just as useless.

DRM is trying to prevent you from robbing your own home. That's why it's an unsolvable problem.

I that the meaning of unsolvable has been changed by you. In your case DRM is like a deed restriction on the property that defines how it can be used and who can use it. Analogies are never perfect but they illustrate a point.

Dale

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

I that the meaning of unsolvable has been changed by you.

Nope.

In your case DRM is like a deed restriction on the property that defines how it can be used and who can use it.

No, a deed restriction would be the equivalent of copyright law, not DRM.

DRM is an attempt to design a lock that has to both allow the owner access to the content, but also prevent pirates from accessing the content. The problem is, they are the same person. There is no way to effectively solve that. As I originally mentioned, someone who understands cryptography knows why that is an unsolvable problem.

Analogies are never perfect but they illustrate a point.

Bad analogies just confuse the issue.

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

It is relevant to the extent that some security is still available even if some people can break in or break the code. Most people either won't know how or won't want to violate the law. The consequences of breaking it are, of course, different.

It doesn't take most. It takes one. Sure, most folks can't write a program to strip DRM. Most are even intimidated by figuring out how to use the programs that other people write to do this. What they are usually quite able to do is google up the files they want online. If one thief picks the lock on your house, I can't just click on a link to steal your TV. While many people here have an ethical problem with downloading copyrighted works, most people I know IRL do not. This is what makes DRM such a losing battle. Make buying the content easy and charge a reasonable price and more people will buy. Getting burned by DRM will just convince more people to download pirate copies.

[HansTWN]

Well, in some countries authorities are checking on who downloads from pirate sites, recording IP addresses, etc. To be really anonymous requires technical knowhow -- finding and using proxy servers is not easier than executing simple python scripts!

That doesn't mean that I don't agree with you. They should do away with DRM (or at least have only one universal DRM) and offer more books in digital form. But downloading illegal copies is not without danger for the user, and my guess is laws will be passed to force internet providers to give out user names in such cases.

And if you are a Kindle user they know where you are at all times, anyway!

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Well, in some countries authorities are checking on who downloads from pirate sites, recording IP addresses, etc. To be really anonymous requires technical knowhow -- finding and using proxy servers is not easier than executing simple python scripts!

And if you are a Kindle user they know where you are at all times, anyway!

It's been pointed out that *downloading* the copies may not be illegal at all--distributing them is illegal, but receiving a copy made in violation of copyright is not a crime, not even a tort.

Downloading without uploading may not be anything prosecutable.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Well, in some countries authorities are checking on who downloads from pirate sites, recording IP addresses, etc.

Copyright enforcers have only gone after uploaders, not downloaders, as far as I know. The uploader is the one who is infringing the distribution right that copyright gives. It only takes one person willing to risk being an uploader for the information to be available on google/etc.

I'm not defending copyright infringement, I'm just pointing out the realities of it.

However, whether or not people engage in infringement does not change the fact that DRM is useless to prevent that infringement. It took the music industry a long time to figure out that the battle was impossible to win. Hopefully the publishing industry will be smarter.

DRM does nothing to stop piracy, all it accomplishes is to annoy your legitimate customers (and possibly make them turn to alternative sources).

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

It's been pointed out that *downloading* the copies may not be illegal at all--distributing them is illegal, but receiving a copy made in violation of copyright is not a crime, not even a tort.

Downloading without uploading may not be anything prosecutable.

Maybe not yet in the US (yet being the operative word), but in France, for example, they just passed a new law: three illegal downloads and your internet connection will be cut.

It also used to be legal to bring in pirated copies of clothes and bags, etc for personal use in your luggage. Now these can just be confiscated.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

DRM does nothing to stop piracy, all it accomplishes is to annoy your legitimate customers (and possibly make them turn to alternative sources).

Again, mainly I am with you on this one. But imagine the following DRM system. One single DRM system, all files can be read on all devices. You can use up to 6 copies at the same time and authorize, de-authorize devices at will within the limit. Now DRM wouldn't really be much of a problem, would it? You could do more with an ebook than with a pbook, you would have simultaneous access to 6 copies! Oh, and before I forget it, books must be resellable (technically difficult, but possible with de-authorization).

And I just wanted to point out that you are not as anonymous on the web as you might think. Especially technically less savy users are taking quite serious risks. They can be traced and legal situations change quickly.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

It's been pointed out that *downloading* the copies may not be illegal at all--distributing them is illegal, but receiving a copy made in violation of copyright is not a crime, not even a tort.

Downloading without uploading may not be anything prosecutable.

The one catch is that there is a thing called "indirect infringement" where if it can be shown that your actions caused the distributor to commit infringement, then you are partially liable as well. I don't think it's ever been tried against a downloader in a US court though, nobody has ever been sued for downloading.

It usually applies to things like hosting sites that don't qualify for safe harbor because they either have direct knowledge of the infringement and don't stop it (or because they encourage it and/or financially benefit from it), as well as people who write software/tools for the specific purpose of enabling copyright infringement. This is what the original Betamax case against Sony was for. The media industry tried to sue Sony to stop the VCR because they claimed that it was enabling copyright infringement, therefore Sony was an indirect infringer. The courts turned it down though, because there were many uses for the VCR that had nothing to do with infringement. In order to qualify as indirect infringement, the tool has to be for the specific purpose of enabling infringement.

As far as I know, nobody has ever tried to argue in court that a downloader's actions are indirect infringement because they "induce" the uploader to distribute. That's the only way I can think of though that they could possibly use to go after a downloader. Even then it's a pretty big stretch.

Generally speaking, it's the uploader (aka distributor) that is liable for copyright infringement. Copyright law does not make it illegal to receive infringed material, only to distribute it without authorization. Presumably, this is because downloaders are not expected to know whether or not the uploader is authorized. Authorization is the sole responsibility of the uploader.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Maybe not yet in the US (yet being the operative word), but in France, for example, they just passed a new law: three illegal downloads and your internet connection will be cut.

Are you sure the law says "downloads", or does it say something about three counts of copyright infringement. Many news/blog sites use the term "download" all the time, when what they really are talking about is uploading. For instance, you can find articles all over the internet talking about the RIAA suing illegal downloaders, when the reality is that nobody has ever been sued by the RIAA for downloading. It's always uploading. I'd be curious what the law really said, versus what some news/blog story claimed it said.

By the way, last I saw the law was ruled as unconstitutional in France about a month ago and overturned. Has it been passed again?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Again, mainly I am with you on this one. But imagine the following DRM system. One single DRM system, all files can be read on all devices.

Doesn't matter. It will still be cracked shortly after being released, and people will strip it and share the un-DRMd versions.

However, if such a system ever exists (which I doubt), it would at least be a step in the right direction.