18 ms·

Lawsuit could be the beginning of the end for DRM

FussyZeus 10y ago
The fact is both sides of this have a lot to answer for in terms of eroding the underlying relationship when it comes to any consumer/creator transaction. For a long time media companies made it artificially hard to purchase content legally and in so doing are at least partially responsible for the rampancy of piracy. In turn, a lot of people got used to pirating content for free instead of paying for it, even when reasonably priced options were made available. A decent number of pirates now refuse to pay for digital content/software because "information should be free." This is a farce and anyone who earns a living writing software or producing content knows it. A decent number of media companies now treat their customers like criminals, constantly checking and rechecking if they actually own the stuff they're trying to use, which would be fine more or less if the software doing this actually worked. If any one of the thousand links in that given chain break, then the media the customer has paid for becomes unusable or is even deleted, and that is unacceptable. Both sides have their bad actors and it's hard to see a way out of this mess.
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  This is very encouraging to read and I'm in complete agreement. I've posted a link to my essay in this thread because I share the media/tech slugfest perspective. Personally I think the starting point to get out of this mess is an overhaul first and foremost of Copyright terms. They're so far out of whack it genuinely stifles innovation and expression and progress...etc. Now, more than ever, time moves quickly - what may be profitable yesterday (e.g. "Gangnam Style") may quickly fade. Thus it stands to reason that temporary protections should be, well, much more temporary! I say this as a content creator and paying customer - life + 5 years is, to me, more than fair. There's a window to allow families of the deceased creator to make a bit of cash and get their affairs in order before the works head into the Public Domain for the benefit of all.
  - TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
    The problem is the greed and narcissism on both sides. The content corps make a ton of money by exploiting creative people. They used to be able to justify this by claiming that they sponsored and nurtured talent. That was always a stretch, even when 15% of a CD sale - maximum - went to the original creator, and the rest to the rest of the industry. But advances did happen, and they were the only way creatives could afford to get on the first step of the professional ladder. Now we have shitty YouTube and Spotify streaming deals where advances don't happen, and the industry - all of it - keeps way more than the 85% of nominal value it used to. But the "I want it, so you should give it to me for nothing because it costs nothing to copy" pirates aren't any better. How many pirates have made any effort to sponsor creators, or pay creators directly for original content? So what we actually have isn't a moral battle between good guys and bad guys. It's a battle between two distribution cartels - one legally sanctioned, the other not yet sanctioned but hoping to be. And both are increasingly indistinguishable in their lack of interest in sponsoring and promoting original creative work.
    - FussyZeus 10y ago
      > The content corps make a ton of money by exploiting creative people. That shouldn't be part of this debate. It's despicable, there's no doubt but a company doing unethical things doesn't give license for anyone to steal from them. If you don't want to support them that's your choice, you can't choose to steal the product under the banner of moral outrage and claim to be in the right. Tons of companies exploit tons of people, creative and otherwise. I can't steal a Ferrari because one of the engineers feels underpaid.
      - xg15 10y ago
        It shouldn't, but supporting artists is often brought up as an argument from the content industry to justify DRM or absurd lengths of copyright. So it's valid to debunk that argument in this context. Of course that doesn't change the fact that supporting artists is an actual problem and TheOtherHobbes' objections to the privacy cloud are very real. However, there are other projects (e.g. Patreon) that experiment with solutions without resolving to DRM.
- snuxoll 10y ago
  > A decent number of media companies now treat their customers like criminals To the point that the majority of the ways we consume video these days don't even allow us to keep copies locally. Thanks for letting me cache content on mobile devices Amazon, but a big middle finger for not being allowed to do so on my PC so I can actually strip the damned garbage and put it into Plex so everytime I put on a show for my daughter I have to navigate through all the other "offerings" you have available because there's no way for me to just organize and curate what displays on screen. It's gone beyond just treating customers like criminals, as a result of getting locked into video providers we have to wade through a deluge of adverts for other content instead of being allowed to control our own experience. I'm this far away from just throwing money down to rebuy all my children's content on iTunes and pay the $50 for a DRM removal tool just so I can regain the control I had over my experience like I had when I first started purchasing digital media. To make things more irritating it's horrendously difficult or simply impossible to actually buy physical media for a lot of things, especially TV shows, these days. Ripping a blu-ray is easy, I have yet to find any solution for stripping Widevine off a streaming video.
- njharman 10y ago
  > reasonably priced When a cartel has monopoly on distribution (which is $$ thing copyright provides and DRM attempts to shore up) and thus sets prices and even when/how/if you get to buy/rent content, how can you claim to know what reasonable price is? Your other claims are even more spurious. "A decent number of pirates..." Yeah, how many is that? what % is "decent"? what study are you citing for this shocking revelation? and what exactly is the economic impact of these people refusing to buy what they were never going to buy anyway but proving free markting? Cause there are actual studies showing piracy increases sales. You can use the google. Though, I suspect you're too lazy, here's one https://ideas.repec.org/p/qed/wpaper/1354.html https://ideas.repec.org/p/qed/wpaper/1354.html The problem facing media industry is that the actual value of most content is probably near $0.00. The supply of content is unbelievably massive. Far outstriping demand. So, the Media industry spends much money to generate artificial demand. Through marketing, advertising, whole shows / channels E! exist only to generate demand for content and voa lobbying for distribution restrictions.
madaxe_again 10y ago
It appears the EFF intend to fight section 1201 (thou shalt not circumvent) on first amendment free speech arguments, and on the idea that punishment for circumvention creates a chilling effect. I don't think a court will buy it. They'll argue that 1201 protects the free speech of content creators, and that it works as intended - and they will cite the decss appeal, which was won by the media giants on the same argument. https://www.2600.com/news/112801-files/universal.html https://www.2600.com/news/112801-files/universal.html
- astazangasta 10y ago
  How is this possibly about the speech of content creators? That implies I'm obliged to listen whenever anyone speaks.
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  In a previous discussion, I was informed of a mistaken assumption of mine: There was a case where Section 1201 was ruled as more applicable than Fair Use. It's my belief - and apparently questionable in reality - that Fair Use that passes the four-factor test should absolutely be exempt from DMCA restrictions. If the EFF case can somehow convince the court that the chilling effect is real, I will be thoroughly impressed. What I mean by this is I think competent defense will point out that the Internet is awash in DMCA violating individuals engaged in Fair Use activities (commentary, parody, etc) and the merit of the DMCA is to curtail incentive to engage in infringement on an industrial scale.
  - abritinthebay 10y ago
    > the merit of the DMCA is to curtail incentive to engage in infringement on an industrial scale. But that is not what the law says. It is written in much more broad, general, terms. If they get them to say that in court then it would be a huge step forward.
    - 6stringmerc 10y ago
      I'm all for it! I want the law clarified, not completely tossed out. The expression "throwing the baby out with the bath water" is what I somewhat believe to be at play here.
throwaway1974 10y ago
If it was not for DRM removal tools I would have recently been screwed by Amazon, here is my story: I was a longtime customer (easily 10 years or more I think) and have bought every version of Kindle to have come out over the years (unfortunately they break easily) and have build up a large collection Recently I replaced the debit card on my account as the old one expired, placed and order for a digital game code for my xbox one (done it many times before) and bang my account was nuked. Yes I used 2fa no my account was not hacked by anyone. No I never abused their refund policy as some people do. Yes I tried resetting my password and get an email about password change BUT still can not login as it errors out. I must have rang dozen of times (chat doesnt work if you dont have an account) and send as many emails to everyone from support to jeff@amazon.com (apparently this is a shortcut to get attention to your case) in all cases was told an "account specialist" would get in contact, yadda yadda but no luck. If it was not for deDRM tools (which I started to use after the 1984 "incident" few years back) all of my books would have been unreadable now, had to deregister the kindle too since account doesnt work. I wonder how many people who are not as tech savy get screwed and are left with nothing.
- bsharitt 10y ago
  I'll only buy DRM content as long as I can easily remove it, and right now the only DRM content I regularly buy is books mostly from Google and Amazon. The first thing i strip the DRM and archive it.
  - pdkl95 10y ago
    I recommend against the buy-and-strip approach, because you are still signaling that you are ok with (some) DRM. The only signal you are sending back to the manufacturer is your purchase. The only thing the manufacturer sees is how the addition of DRM affects their profit, and you're telling them that the DRM is acceptable.
    - patrec 10y ago
      This battle is lost and the reality is already much worse than just DRM. It is increasingly impossible to actually own digital content and all content is moving to digital. You only lease at the revocable pleasure of some multi-billion dollar corporation. No resale, no inheritance, no right of refusal of obnoxious TOS changes if you want continued access. Yes, for some technical books it is still possible to buy a DRM free pdf and have something approximating ownership rights, including resale -- for example http://shop.oreilly.com/category/customer-service/ebooks.do http://shop.oreilly.com/category/customer-service/ebooks.do. But as far as I can tell that's only true for a tiny techical niche -- if there is an alternative to kindle, amazon etc. that actually has a reasonable selection and true ownership I'd love to hear about it.
6stringmerc 10y ago
The link is to a reasonably thought out and worded perspective from that of a technology industry participant. As noted within, there are some guiding principles which establish the basis for perspective and action. As in, the Free Software Foundation wouldn't be interested in participating in the for-profit software market. For a counter-point, when this case first broke and I was able to study the implications from a creator and "IP holder" perspective, I wrote the following essay: https://medium.com/@6StringMerc/arguments-against-the-dmca-section-1201-lawsuit-by-the-eff-b8d760de3fdf#.f5l4oo6an https://medium.com/@6StringMerc/arguments-against-the-dmca-s... I will genuinely engage with anyone who would like to take some assertions or postulations of mine and challenge them for the sake of discussion. These are important topics!
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
  > As in, the Free Software Foundation wouldn't be interested in participating in the for-profit software market. You are mistaken. The FSF does not object to making a profit with software. In fact, they have been selling software themselves. It's about free as in freedom, not about free as in beer.
  - 6stringmerc 10y ago
    Arguably destroying the DRM protections will have ripple effects on the for-profit software market. Do you contend otherwise?
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
      Pretty much every change in law has some ripple effects on some for-profit market. Saying that therefore, an organization pushing for that change is somehow against making a profit in that market is just straw-manning it.
      - 6stringmerc 10y ago
        Okay, I can follow how you interpret my statement. I'd like to clarify that what I was reaching for - and maybe missed - is establishing a "motive." As in, what is the "motive" to change the law? Is it completely altruistic? Is it capitalistic? I'd like to think you'll grant me that the article is very one-sided, in that there's not a single mention of the arts industry's concerns with why they would fight so hard (almost psychotically hard) to establish and maintain the existence of DRM. Thus it felt, to me, extremely one-sided and, perhaps unwisely, I questioned the motive for such a framing.
siliconc0w 10y ago
I wonder if you could make a fourth amendment claim as well. It can hardly be said you can be secure in your effects if your effects are working against you.
bad_user 10y ago
Just a friendly reminder that there are online shops that sell DRM-free content. I found this guide helpful: https://www.defectivebydesign.org/guide https://www.defectivebydesign.org/guide In particular, I'm a Downpour.com customer for audio books. Up until now they had all the content I wanted, high quality too. And with a subscription the prices are good. I've also bought DRM-free games from Gog.com. E-books I sometimes buy from Google Play, where they have mixed content. I only bought DRM-free books from them, like for example the books in the Ender's Game series. The publishers of all technical books I needed, like O'Reilly or Manning, are publishing DRM-free. If I want a book that's only available as DRM-enabled, I buy it in print. For music, I used to have a Google Play Music subscription and also tried Apple Music. But then I realized that I need streaming for work basically and online radio is better. For example I like RadioParadise.com, they are ads free. Bitching about DRM to let other people know about its problems is cool, but even cooler is voting with your wallet.
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  I'm a long-time, very happy Beatport customer. DRM free. To my knowledge, a purchase also includes the implied right of public performance (as in, can play in non-ASCAP/BMI venues without violating terms of the purchase).
- abawany 10y ago
  I agree. I signed up for an Audible trial not realizing the extent of their appalling trash-fire DRM. In summary, you have to run their app on a device they support to be able to listen to their content. Shocking since my local library lets me check out audio books with fewer restrictions. Needless to say that in spite of their very-nice electronic pleadings, I canceled the trial promptly.
shmerl 10y ago
Anti-circumvention laws should be repealed of course. But so far such attempts didn't go far. If this lawsuit will succeed, things will be easier, but it's a pretty random thing with courts. It might as well fail. What should be done is much stronger pressure on legislators to fix this mess. Most simply don't care about this issue because they don't understand its deep impact, and in result, politicians get away with keeping the status quo achieved through corrupted undemocratic lawmaking.
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  I completely agree that legislators are really at the fault of this, and I do see it as a tug-of-war between two gorillas - Content Lobbyists and Tech Lobbyists - with, well, honest customers and researchers caught in the crossfire.
qwertyuiop924 10y ago
I hope, but I am not optimistic. 1201 has lasted this long. It'll be hard to strike it down.
njharman 10y ago
DRM is a symptom. The disease is ridiculously expansive and one-sided copyright law. This is still good fight. Although I'm not optimistic. If DMCA wasn't laughed out of the courts when it made Sharpie(tm) markers illegal "circumvention devices" I kind of doubt that logic and rationality is in control at our legislative and judicial systems.
mankash666 10y ago
DRM exists to counter piracy. Without DRM, the publishers/authors have to rely on the end customer, who, more often than not, will encourage piracy either by sharing our not buying through official channels The concerns raised are against corporations' clumsy implantations and you have to make your case heard against them.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Spivak 10y ago
  Which is vastly different from how it works now. "Let's watch X!" "Is it on Netflix?" "Aww damn, give me 5 minutes." "Alright, I've got it!" downloads xxx_X_1800p_brrip_supervids.mp4 "Just let me plug in my laptop" "THIS MEDIA IS PROTECTED BY INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT LAW" "Haha, I love it when they leave the warning in." enjoys movie.
- catdog 10y ago
  > DRM exists to counter piracy. That's wrong. DRM ensures that piracy provides a better experience because it simply works under any circumstance.
Animats 10y ago
Two blogs deep is the actual lawsuit: [1] Here's the legal theory: "To the extent that Section 1201 forbids circumvention even where such activity would be a noninfringing use (such as a fair use), or facilitates other lawful uses, it undermines the constitutionally required balance between copyright liability and the First Amendment and thereby disturbs the traditional contours of copyright." As a constitutional claim, that's weak, not being an absolute First Amendment claim. The courts tend to defer to Congress where there's a balancing test. But let's see what happens. [1] https://www.eff.org/document/1201-complaint https://www.eff.org/document/1201-complaint
digler999 10y ago
On their website is a banner: "Cancel netflix!". I click on it, and I'm told I should cancel netflix because they put DRM on their HTML5 delivery of movies. Now look, Im a self-professed pirate. I say screw most DRM and I dont recognize IP law. However, I totally disagree that I should "cancel netflix". What are they supposed to do ? Deliver all their movies DRM-free and see them immediately get copied to torrent sites ? Or else, what , not use HTML5 and require STB/smart tv support to use their product (which ALL have DRM, btw ) ? Netflix is the good guy, they are pioneers in electronic content delivery. They are fighting to break the monopoly of the movie industry while having to work with them to get content. And they are producing their own content. All for a very reasonable rate. I will absolutely NOT cancel netflix because they support DRM. What a ridiculous thing to suggest.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  I agree. I think a barrier to distribution helps certain business models that are legit. Especially with the backdrop that most of the public don't care enough to change the situation. Ten years from now, overly-broad laws in copyright and big distributors owning rights will still exist. The work of groups like Netflix... even Redbox... are a nice compromise until something better comes along. I'm impressed Netflix got as far as they did.
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  I appreciate you pointing this out, because it's a very spurious attitude. It is ridiculous, and thank you for explaining why you see it that way.
- roywiggins 10y ago
  Netflix shows are all on torrent sites anyway. I'm not sure they would actually lose anything if they dropped the DRM.
  - 6stringmerc 10y ago
    Not saying it's right, but in practical terms, I'm rather certain they would lose all their contracts with major studios / content holders. They're in such a tough & unique position.
Sleaker 10y ago
Is this blogs CSS messed up for anyone else? The font selection makes it almost illegible.
6stringmerc 10y ago
So, I just kinda-sorta stumbled upon this thought and would like your honest opinions regarding a proposition: Remove Section 1201 (DRM Circumvention) and Section 512 (Safe Harbor) at the same time. What happens next?
- rincebrain 10y ago
  An amazing cacophany of copyright lawsuits flood out to everyone covered by Safe Harbor at once - e.g. ISPs, CDNs, anyone who provides any sort of storage or bandwidth to another person at all...
  - 6stringmerc 10y ago
    Thanks for giving your thoughts, I think they are constructive.

The fact is both sides of this have a lot to answer for in terms of eroding the underlying relationship when it comes to any consumer/creator transaction. For a long time media companies made it artificially hard to purchase content legally and in so doing are at least partially responsible for the rampancy of piracy. In turn, a lot of people got used to pirating content for free instead of paying for it, even when reasonably priced options were made available. A decent number of pirates now refuse to pay for digital content/software because "information should be free." This is a farce and anyone who earns a living writing software or producing content knows it. A decent number of media companies now treat their customers like criminals, constantly checking and rechecking if they actually own the stuff they're trying to use, which would be fine more or less if the software doing this actually worked. If any one of the thousand links in that given chain break, then the media the customer has paid for becomes unusable or is even deleted, and that is unacceptable. Both sides have their bad actors and it's hard to see a way out of this mess.

6stringmerc 10y ago
This is very encouraging to read and I'm in complete agreement. I've posted a link to my essay in this thread because I share the media/tech slugfest perspective. Personally I think the starting point to get out of this mess is an overhaul first and foremost of Copyright terms. They're so far out of whack it genuinely stifles innovation and expression and progress...etc. Now, more than ever, time moves quickly - what may be profitable yesterday (e.g. "Gangnam Style") may quickly fade. Thus it stands to reason that temporary protections should be, well, much more temporary! I say this as a content creator and paying customer - life + 5 years is, to me, more than fair. There's a window to allow families of the deceased creator to make a bit of cash and get their affairs in order before the works head into the Public Domain for the benefit of all.
- TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
  The problem is the greed and narcissism on both sides. The content corps make a ton of money by exploiting creative people. They used to be able to justify this by claiming that they sponsored and nurtured talent. That was always a stretch, even when 15% of a CD sale - maximum - went to the original creator, and the rest to the rest of the industry. But advances did happen, and they were the only way creatives could afford to get on the first step of the professional ladder. Now we have shitty YouTube and Spotify streaming deals where advances don't happen, and the industry - all of it - keeps way more than the 85% of nominal value it used to. But the "I want it, so you should give it to me for nothing because it costs nothing to copy" pirates aren't any better. How many pirates have made any effort to sponsor creators, or pay creators directly for original content? So what we actually have isn't a moral battle between good guys and bad guys. It's a battle between two distribution cartels - one legally sanctioned, the other not yet sanctioned but hoping to be. And both are increasingly indistinguishable in their lack of interest in sponsoring and promoting original creative work.
  - FussyZeus 10y ago
    > The content corps make a ton of money by exploiting creative people. That shouldn't be part of this debate. It's despicable, there's no doubt but a company doing unethical things doesn't give license for anyone to steal from them. If you don't want to support them that's your choice, you can't choose to steal the product under the banner of moral outrage and claim to be in the right. Tons of companies exploit tons of people, creative and otherwise. I can't steal a Ferrari because one of the engineers feels underpaid.
    - xg15 10y ago
      It shouldn't, but supporting artists is often brought up as an argument from the content industry to justify DRM or absurd lengths of copyright. So it's valid to debunk that argument in this context. Of course that doesn't change the fact that supporting artists is an actual problem and TheOtherHobbes' objections to the privacy cloud are very real. However, there are other projects (e.g. Patreon) that experiment with solutions without resolving to DRM.
snuxoll 10y ago
> A decent number of media companies now treat their customers like criminals To the point that the majority of the ways we consume video these days don't even allow us to keep copies locally. Thanks for letting me cache content on mobile devices Amazon, but a big middle finger for not being allowed to do so on my PC so I can actually strip the damned garbage and put it into Plex so everytime I put on a show for my daughter I have to navigate through all the other "offerings" you have available because there's no way for me to just organize and curate what displays on screen. It's gone beyond just treating customers like criminals, as a result of getting locked into video providers we have to wade through a deluge of adverts for other content instead of being allowed to control our own experience. I'm this far away from just throwing money down to rebuy all my children's content on iTunes and pay the $50 for a DRM removal tool just so I can regain the control I had over my experience like I had when I first started purchasing digital media. To make things more irritating it's horrendously difficult or simply impossible to actually buy physical media for a lot of things, especially TV shows, these days. Ripping a blu-ray is easy, I have yet to find any solution for stripping Widevine off a streaming video.
njharman 10y ago
> reasonably priced When a cartel has monopoly on distribution (which is $$ thing copyright provides and DRM attempts to shore up) and thus sets prices and even when/how/if you get to buy/rent content, how can you claim to know what reasonable price is? Your other claims are even more spurious. "A decent number of pirates..." Yeah, how many is that? what % is "decent"? what study are you citing for this shocking revelation? and what exactly is the economic impact of these people refusing to buy what they were never going to buy anyway but proving free markting? Cause there are actual studies showing piracy increases sales. You can use the google. Though, I suspect you're too lazy, here's one https://ideas.repec.org/p/qed/wpaper/1354.html https://ideas.repec.org/p/qed/wpaper/1354.html The problem facing media industry is that the actual value of most content is probably near $0.00. The supply of content is unbelievably massive. Far outstriping demand. So, the Media industry spends much money to generate artificial demand. Through marketing, advertising, whole shows / channels E! exist only to generate demand for content and voa lobbying for distribution restrictions.

madaxe_again 10y ago

It appears the EFF intend to fight section 1201 (thou shalt not circumvent) on first amendment free speech arguments, and on the idea that punishment for circumvention creates a chilling effect. I don't think a court will buy it. They'll argue that 1201 protects the free speech of content creators, and that it works as intended - and they will cite the decss appeal, which was won by the media giants on the same argument. https://www.2600.com/news/112801-files/universal.html https://www.2600.com/news/112801-files/universal.html

astazangasta 10y ago
How is this possibly about the speech of content creators? That implies I'm obliged to listen whenever anyone speaks.
6stringmerc 10y ago
In a previous discussion, I was informed of a mistaken assumption of mine: There was a case where Section 1201 was ruled as more applicable than Fair Use. It's my belief - and apparently questionable in reality - that Fair Use that passes the four-factor test should absolutely be exempt from DMCA restrictions. If the EFF case can somehow convince the court that the chilling effect is real, I will be thoroughly impressed. What I mean by this is I think competent defense will point out that the Internet is awash in DMCA violating individuals engaged in Fair Use activities (commentary, parody, etc) and the merit of the DMCA is to curtail incentive to engage in infringement on an industrial scale.
- abritinthebay 10y ago
  > the merit of the DMCA is to curtail incentive to engage in infringement on an industrial scale. But that is not what the law says. It is written in much more broad, general, terms. If they get them to say that in court then it would be a huge step forward.
  - 6stringmerc 10y ago
    I'm all for it! I want the law clarified, not completely tossed out. The expression "throwing the baby out with the bath water" is what I somewhat believe to be at play here.

throwaway1974 10y ago

If it was not for DRM removal tools I would have recently been screwed by Amazon, here is my story: I was a longtime customer (easily 10 years or more I think) and have bought every version of Kindle to have come out over the years (unfortunately they break easily) and have build up a large collection Recently I replaced the debit card on my account as the old one expired, placed and order for a digital game code for my xbox one (done it many times before) and bang my account was nuked. Yes I used 2fa no my account was not hacked by anyone. No I never abused their refund policy as some people do. Yes I tried resetting my password and get an email about password change BUT still can not login as it errors out. I must have rang dozen of times (chat doesnt work if you dont have an account) and send as many emails to everyone from support to jeff@amazon.com (apparently this is a shortcut to get attention to your case) in all cases was told an "account specialist" would get in contact, yadda yadda but no luck. If it was not for deDRM tools (which I started to use after the 1984 "incident" few years back) all of my books would have been unreadable now, had to deregister the kindle too since account doesnt work. I wonder how many people who are not as tech savy get screwed and are left with nothing.

bsharitt 10y ago
I'll only buy DRM content as long as I can easily remove it, and right now the only DRM content I regularly buy is books mostly from Google and Amazon. The first thing i strip the DRM and archive it.
- pdkl95 10y ago
  I recommend against the buy-and-strip approach, because you are still signaling that you are ok with (some) DRM. The only signal you are sending back to the manufacturer is your purchase. The only thing the manufacturer sees is how the addition of DRM affects their profit, and you're telling them that the DRM is acceptable.
  - patrec 10y ago
    This battle is lost and the reality is already much worse than just DRM. It is increasingly impossible to actually own digital content and all content is moving to digital. You only lease at the revocable pleasure of some multi-billion dollar corporation. No resale, no inheritance, no right of refusal of obnoxious TOS changes if you want continued access. Yes, for some technical books it is still possible to buy a DRM free pdf and have something approximating ownership rights, including resale -- for example http://shop.oreilly.com/category/customer-service/ebooks.do http://shop.oreilly.com/category/customer-service/ebooks.do. But as far as I can tell that's only true for a tiny techical niche -- if there is an alternative to kindle, amazon etc. that actually has a reasonable selection and true ownership I'd love to hear about it.

6stringmerc 10y ago

The link is to a reasonably thought out and worded perspective from that of a technology industry participant. As noted within, there are some guiding principles which establish the basis for perspective and action. As in, the Free Software Foundation wouldn't be interested in participating in the for-profit software market. For a counter-point, when this case first broke and I was able to study the implications from a creator and "IP holder" perspective, I wrote the following essay: https://medium.com/@6StringMerc/arguments-against-the-dmca-section-1201-lawsuit-by-the-eff-b8d760de3fdf#.f5l4oo6an https://medium.com/@6StringMerc/arguments-against-the-dmca-s... I will genuinely engage with anyone who would like to take some assertions or postulations of mine and challenge them for the sake of discussion. These are important topics!

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
> As in, the Free Software Foundation wouldn't be interested in participating in the for-profit software market. You are mistaken. The FSF does not object to making a profit with software. In fact, they have been selling software themselves. It's about free as in freedom, not about free as in beer.
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  Arguably destroying the DRM protections will have ripple effects on the for-profit software market. Do you contend otherwise?
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
    Pretty much every change in law has some ripple effects on some for-profit market. Saying that therefore, an organization pushing for that change is somehow against making a profit in that market is just straw-manning it.
    - 6stringmerc 10y ago
      Okay, I can follow how you interpret my statement. I'd like to clarify that what I was reaching for - and maybe missed - is establishing a "motive." As in, what is the "motive" to change the law? Is it completely altruistic? Is it capitalistic? I'd like to think you'll grant me that the article is very one-sided, in that there's not a single mention of the arts industry's concerns with why they would fight so hard (almost psychotically hard) to establish and maintain the existence of DRM. Thus it felt, to me, extremely one-sided and, perhaps unwisely, I questioned the motive for such a framing.

siliconc0w 10y ago

I wonder if you could make a fourth amendment claim as well. It can hardly be said you can be secure in your effects if your effects are working against you.

bad_user 10y ago

Just a friendly reminder that there are online shops that sell DRM-free content. I found this guide helpful: https://www.defectivebydesign.org/guide https://www.defectivebydesign.org/guide In particular, I'm a Downpour.com customer for audio books. Up until now they had all the content I wanted, high quality too. And with a subscription the prices are good. I've also bought DRM-free games from Gog.com. E-books I sometimes buy from Google Play, where they have mixed content. I only bought DRM-free books from them, like for example the books in the Ender's Game series. The publishers of all technical books I needed, like O'Reilly or Manning, are publishing DRM-free. If I want a book that's only available as DRM-enabled, I buy it in print. For music, I used to have a Google Play Music subscription and also tried Apple Music. But then I realized that I need streaming for work basically and online radio is better. For example I like RadioParadise.com, they are ads free. Bitching about DRM to let other people know about its problems is cool, but even cooler is voting with your wallet.

6stringmerc 10y ago
I'm a long-time, very happy Beatport customer. DRM free. To my knowledge, a purchase also includes the implied right of public performance (as in, can play in non-ASCAP/BMI venues without violating terms of the purchase).
abawany 10y ago
I agree. I signed up for an Audible trial not realizing the extent of their appalling trash-fire DRM. In summary, you have to run their app on a device they support to be able to listen to their content. Shocking since my local library lets me check out audio books with fewer restrictions. Needless to say that in spite of their very-nice electronic pleadings, I canceled the trial promptly.

shmerl 10y ago

Anti-circumvention laws should be repealed of course. But so far such attempts didn't go far. If this lawsuit will succeed, things will be easier, but it's a pretty random thing with courts. It might as well fail. What should be done is much stronger pressure on legislators to fix this mess. Most simply don't care about this issue because they don't understand its deep impact, and in result, politicians get away with keeping the status quo achieved through corrupted undemocratic lawmaking.

6stringmerc 10y ago
I completely agree that legislators are really at the fault of this, and I do see it as a tug-of-war between two gorillas - Content Lobbyists and Tech Lobbyists - with, well, honest customers and researchers caught in the crossfire.

qwertyuiop924 10y ago

I hope, but I am not optimistic. 1201 has lasted this long. It'll be hard to strike it down.

njharman 10y ago

DRM is a symptom. The disease is ridiculously expansive and one-sided copyright law. This is still good fight. Although I'm not optimistic. If DMCA wasn't laughed out of the courts when it made Sharpie(tm) markers illegal "circumvention devices" I kind of doubt that logic and rationality is in control at our legislative and judicial systems.

mankash666 10y ago

DRM exists to counter piracy. Without DRM, the publishers/authors have to rely on the end customer, who, more often than not, will encourage piracy either by sharing our not buying through official channels The concerns raised are against corporations' clumsy implantations and you have to make your case heard against them.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Spivak 10y ago
Which is vastly different from how it works now. "Let's watch X!" "Is it on Netflix?" "Aww damn, give me 5 minutes." "Alright, I've got it!" downloads xxx_X_1800p_brrip_supervids.mp4 "Just let me plug in my laptop" "THIS MEDIA IS PROTECTED BY INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT LAW" "Haha, I love it when they leave the warning in." enjoys movie.
catdog 10y ago
> DRM exists to counter piracy. That's wrong. DRM ensures that piracy provides a better experience because it simply works under any circumstance.

Animats 10y ago

Two blogs deep is the actual lawsuit: [1] Here's the legal theory: "To the extent that Section 1201 forbids circumvention even where such activity would be a noninfringing use (such as a fair use), or facilitates other lawful uses, it undermines the constitutionally required balance between copyright liability and the First Amendment and thereby disturbs the traditional contours of copyright." As a constitutional claim, that's weak, not being an absolute First Amendment claim. The courts tend to defer to Congress where there's a balancing test. But let's see what happens. [1] https://www.eff.org/document/1201-complaint https://www.eff.org/document/1201-complaint

digler999 10y ago

On their website is a banner: "Cancel netflix!". I click on it, and I'm told I should cancel netflix because they put DRM on their HTML5 delivery of movies. Now look, Im a self-professed pirate. I say screw most DRM and I dont recognize IP law. However, I totally disagree that I should "cancel netflix". What are they supposed to do ? Deliver all their movies DRM-free and see them immediately get copied to torrent sites ? Or else, what , not use HTML5 and require STB/smart tv support to use their product (which ALL have DRM, btw ) ? Netflix is the good guy, they are pioneers in electronic content delivery. They are fighting to break the monopoly of the movie industry while having to work with them to get content. And they are producing their own content. All for a very reasonable rate. I will absolutely NOT cancel netflix because they support DRM. What a ridiculous thing to suggest.

nickpsecurity 10y ago
I agree. I think a barrier to distribution helps certain business models that are legit. Especially with the backdrop that most of the public don't care enough to change the situation. Ten years from now, overly-broad laws in copyright and big distributors owning rights will still exist. The work of groups like Netflix... even Redbox... are a nice compromise until something better comes along. I'm impressed Netflix got as far as they did.
6stringmerc 10y ago
I appreciate you pointing this out, because it's a very spurious attitude. It is ridiculous, and thank you for explaining why you see it that way.
roywiggins 10y ago
Netflix shows are all on torrent sites anyway. I'm not sure they would actually lose anything if they dropped the DRM.
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  Not saying it's right, but in practical terms, I'm rather certain they would lose all their contracts with major studios / content holders. They're in such a tough & unique position.

Sleaker 10y ago

Is this blogs CSS messed up for anyone else? The font selection makes it almost illegible.

6stringmerc 10y ago

So, I just kinda-sorta stumbled upon this thought and would like your honest opinions regarding a proposition: Remove Section 1201 (DRM Circumvention) and Section 512 (Safe Harbor) at the same time. What happens next?

rincebrain 10y ago
An amazing cacophany of copyright lawsuits flood out to everyone covered by Safe Harbor at once - e.g. ISPs, CDNs, anyone who provides any sort of storage or bandwidth to another person at all...
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  Thanks for giving your thoughts, I think they are constructive.