[debate] Let's discuss DRM

Wed May 20 01:21:11 UTC 2009

The fundamental problem with DRM is that it creates the only case I know
of where stolen media  is more valuable than legally acquired media.
With stolen content I can use it where I want and share it with whom I
want (under fair use rules), with DRM protected content there are sharp
limitations on what I can play the content on and how I can share it.
In addition, my DRM enabled player may not be compliant with the DRM
release level of the content requiring an upgrade that also requires a
network connection.  If I don't have a network I may not be able to
enjoy the content even once.   Finally enforcement focuses way too much
attention on kids and seems to put them at risk and doesn't focus enough
on criminals who aren't really bothered by DRM at all.   In my mind
there is something terribly wrong with a process that seems to
criminalize a protected group like children.   

Rob Enderle

Principal Analyst

Work:  408 272-8560

Cell:     408 832-6326

FAX:    408 904-5274

From: debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org
[mailto:debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org] On Behalf Of Chris Blask
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 4:55 PM
To: Imri Goldberg; debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
Subject: Re: [debate] Let's discuss DRM

Oh yeah, bring the noise.

1.  If I can play music I can record it.  Worst case I can place
microphones in front of speakers and just record it all over again.  A
little bit of technical knowledge and I can skip the actual speakers and
microphones.

2.  When laws start making criminals out of generally honest people it
is a sign that something is out of whack with your legal system.  In the
early 80s the Canadian government "tried to reduce cigarette smoking" by
massively raising taxes on cigarettes, creating an enormous financial
incentive both for consumers to buy bootleg cigarettes and for organized
crime to buy Canadian cigarettes in the States  (where prices were ~20%
for the same cigarettes) and resell them in Canada.  When I noticed that
all of the little  old ladies at work were smoking bootleg cigarettes
(the proceeds from which were funding running gun-battles between
criminals in speedboats and police) it sank in that the law had created
criminals where none had existed before.

3.  DRM systems *can be* bad for business in that they institutionalize
distrust between producer and consumer.  The logic is that consumers are
intrinsically dishonest and will steal products if they are able,
therefore producers must force compliance on them.   The statistical
reality is that the majority of people will willing pay what they
perceive to be a fair price for a desired product.

4.  DRM is bad for artists if for no other reasonn than it makes them
believe that the kinds of business models that require DRM will be best
for them.  I strongly believe that artists should embrace the broad
distribution of their digital content and build business models that
leverage that.

-chris

From: Imri Goldberg <lorgandon at gmail.com>

Hi

It seems to me there are some good points to be made on both sides of
the DRM debate.
As a starting point, you may want to pursue "A DRM Dissertation"
(http://www.debiantutorials.org/a-drm-dissertation-off-topic-230) by
Cory Doctorow from 2004, that recently I found on proggit
(www.reddit.com/r/programming ). 
The main (relevant) points there are:

1. DRM systems don't work.

2. DRM systems are bad for society, mostly by making criminals out of
generally honest people: 

" in Norway the studios put the local fuzz up to bringing him up on
charges of *unlawfully trespassing upon a computer system.* When his
defense asked, "Which computer has Jon trespassed upon?" the answer was:
"His own." 

His no-fooling, real and physical property has been expropriated by the
weird, notional, metaphorical intellectual property on his DVD: DRM only
works if your record player becomes the property of whomever's records
you're playing."

3. DRM systems are bad for business, mostly because they prevent the
growth of new markets, and creating law-backed monopolies 
"There's a company that's manufacturing the world's first HDD-based DVD
jukebox, a thing that holds 30 movies, and they're charging $30,000 for
this thing. We're talking about a $300 hard drive and a $300 PC -- all
that other cost is the cost of anticompetition."

4. DRM systems are bad for artists, mostly by holding back new ways of
making art: "To abandon invention now robs tomorrow's artists of the new
businesses and new reach and new audiences that the Internet and the PC
can give them."

I hope I'm doing his article justice. I tried to present Cory Doctorow's
points as I understood them.
There was also a short discussion of this article on proggit at
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/8ll9d/a_drm_dissertation_co
ry_doctorow_speaking_to/

It is easy to counter some of his points, and there have obviously been
many developments since 2004. Anyone interesting in discussing this?

Cheers,
Imri

-- 
Imri Goldberg
--------------------------------------
www.algorithm.co.il/blogs/
--------------------------------------
-- insert signature here ----

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/pipermail/debate/attachments/20090519/8225599f/attachment-0001.htm>