Is DRM Just a Consumer Rights Issue?

Tue Jun 06 17:11:55 -0700 2006
manage

Is DRM just a consumer rights issue affecting your record collection? A UK board is treating it as such. But it's much more important than that.

Before Gutenberg, copyists, using pen and ink, duplicated written political dialogue laboriously. Only the wealthy and the church could afford to employ copyists, and during this period the paucity of communications limited the exercise of democracy to small groups. The advent of Gutenberg's press made the mass distribution of written political dialogue possible. People vote based on what they hear and read, and the improvement in communications brought by the press made egalitarian mass democracy possible. It is thus no surprise that the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the freedom of the press.

Within the last century, electronic communications have increasingly become the vehicle of democratic discourse. Because radio and television broadcasting are expensive with limited frequencies available, the wealthy have dominated broadcasting. The Internet and World Wide Web place into the common man's hands the capability of global electronic broadcasting. Clearly, the Internet is the most important tool of democracy since Gutenberg developed movable type.

In order to protect democratic discourse in the future, the Internet must remain a fair and level playing field for the distribution of political speech. The full capability of the Internet must remain available to all, without restriction by religious, business, or political interests.

A number of "Internet radio" and "streaming TV" devices and programs have become available today. Most of the products sold for this purpose only receive stations that have been enabled through the gateway site of product's manufacturer. The devices are sold below their real cost, because the manufacturers of these products get a royalty from all of the stations that the product is allowed to carry. Thus, the manufacturer of an Internet radio or TV will control what stations their product provides access to, and what political viewpoints are available via the product. Most of these products use proprietary file formats to lock out anything the manufacturer doesn't control.

One day in the future, most of us will receive text, audio, and video programming via the Internet, either wired or wireless. Imagine the problem for democracy if, when that day dawns, the manufacturers of our access devices are a few companies that have attained a market lock on Internet broadcasting, thus determining what political viewpoints the electorate can receive.

Unfortunately, the trend is for law to further restrict any attempt to circumvent a manufacturer's choice of what programs you will be able to receive, through protection of their proprietary formats in the name of "eliminating piracy". DMCA does it today, Barbara Boxer's PERFORM act, and the WIPO broadcasting treaty will soon add to the burden. The $250,000 fine attached to DMCA and the associated legal defense costs would be enough to bankrupt most people, and there's jail time too. A tiered Internet would further limit your choices.
So, if you think DRM only affects your music collection, think again. It affects the very core of democracy.
Bruce Perens

Bruce, I hate to be a grammar nazi,

Wed Jun 07 10:12:48 -0700 2006
manage
but the word you want in the last paragraph is "Affects", not "Effects".
Is DRM Just a Consumer Rights Issue?
Wed Jun 07 10:27:21 -0700 2006
manage
"Only the wealthy and the church could afford to employ copyists"

In time you are writing about, the church was relatively powerful and wealthy, so perhaps that fragment might more correctly say "Only the wealthy (most notably the church) could afford to employ copyists."

Heads up, Bruce!

Wed Jun 07 13:27:16 -0700 2006
manage
Boxer is a good guy.  The PERFORM act is Diane Feinstein's evil deed.
Is DRM Just a Consumer Rights Issue?
Wed Jun 07 15:12:04 -0700 2006
manage
You could look at this from another angle. The original U.S. "people's democracy" was a temporary anomaly created largely by transatlantic dissidents. The status quo has gradually become re-established since then, with corporate democracy rising as its modern equivalent. This requires continued control of opinion (and therefore information) by the wealthy and influential. They can't afford to give that away easily, so the outlook seems bleak.
Is DRM Just a Consumer Rights Issue?
Wed Jun 07 19:47:11 -0700 2006
manage
>You could look at this from another angle. The original U.S. "people's democracy"

The original U.S. was not a democracy.  It was a constitutional republic.
Is DRM Just a Consumer Rights Issue?
Wed Jun 07 20:10:15 -0700 2006
manage
"U.S people's democracy" vs constitutional republic: I think you missed my point. I was not discussing early U.S. constitutional law, but the transition from a temporary relatively democratic system to an oligarchy more in tune with the systems which many U.S. immigrants sought to escape. That is more germane to the topic under discussion. I'm happy for you to score all the points you want on legal details.

If money talks, DRM walks

Wed Jun 07 18:35:25 -0700 2006
manage
I would be much more alarmed about DRM if I hadn't already abandoned commercial movies, music, software, and TV. Some advantages of having done so:

1. I can be fairly unconcerned and unbothered about whatever lengths the movie, music, and computer industries go to with DRM.

2. I'm no longer financially supporting their efforts to push DRM (since I'm no longer buying or using their products). This not only helps me, it helps others as well; and it harms no one.

3. Those industries want complete control over their products and how their products are used, as a priority above anything else. But the only way they're assured of total control is if no one uses their products. I'm making it much easier for them to achieve their goal, by not using any of their products in any way.

4. It's a much more natural and appropriate response than piracy. The more that people use a product (whether it's purchased or pirated) the more they become potential revenue streams for the suppliers of the product. Free samples (including piracy) are the most effective way to build interest in a product. In the long run, piracy helps the suppliers of a product much more than it hurts them, as the people using the product become increasingly dependent on it. I chose apathy rather than rebellious dependency. I'd rather not be dependent on the products of suppliers who are so interested in denying basic human freedoms (freedom of speech, fair use, unrestricted use).

5. With respect to commercial software, I'm increasingly meeting my needs with free and open-source software (FOSS). FOSS enables human freedoms and the formation of healthy communities. And the quality and functionality of the software is increasing at an exponential rate compared to the linear rate of commercial software. It'll be increasingly easy in the future to meet my needs through FOSS.

6. Movies and TV shows are not an essential need. They're simply a form of entertainment. It's a way to pass some time living vicariously through the fictional lives of fictional characters, rather than finding reward and meaning in our own lives.

7. I've found value in the past with music, but not enough to justify an acceptance of DRM. And even music has a vicarious element to it, of feeling other people's emotions rather than discovering our own.

8. Removing vicarious hobbies ecourages growth and experience in life. DRM made this a much easier decision than it would have been otherwise.

If everyone took these steps, the power behind DRM (and the threat of it) would diminish to nothing. It's the one action that would truly scare the industries behind DRM--a lack of interest in their products.

As a side note, I would probably be open to community-created sources of entertainment in the future, especially music, as the points above are motivated more by avoiding DRM (and all that goes with it) than by avoiding vicarious entertainment.
If money talks, DRM walks
Wed Jun 07 18:49:28 -0700 2006
manage
It has been suggested that in the future, all content players would only play DRMed content, and Trusted Computing would mean all computers would only run signed and DRMed programs. For you to be able to create and distribute any content at all so that other people could view it, it would have to be approved and signed by some sort of authority.

DRM won't always be restricted to the entertainment industry, so in the future it could become a problem even for those who try to avoid mass-produced music and Hollywood movies.
If money talks, DRM walks
Wed Jun 07 19:21:51 -0700 2006
manage
I'm mostly concerned about usage of DRM by governments, as it would be an easy mechanism for censorship of politically-unfavorable views, and for the surpression of free speech in general.

I think the two key points here are that (a) most people don't realize how bad the potential for DRM is, and (b) most people don't realize how much they can improve the situation by voting with their pocketbooks.

One caveat is that people may eventually "vote" due to the declining quality of the products from these companies. The worse the quality of their products becomes, the more they'll rely on DRM, and vice-versa.

In the long run, I think these commercial industries are doing a great disservice to themselves business-wise. DRM is their habit-forming alternative to competing and making an effort to offer quality products.

More Grammar Nazism

Thu Jun 08 00:12:13 -0700 2006
manage
Sorry, Bruce, but unless you think that DRM is what causes people (wow, and I thought I was strange!) to collect records, it should be

"affecting your record collection"

and not

"effecting your record collection"

in the first line of the post.
Is DRM Just a Consumer Rights Issue?
Thu Jun 08 01:22:34 -0700 2006
manage
Death by DMCA  - devil's bargain

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/print/3673