DRM: ‘end run on fair use’
p2pnet.net Opinion:- Everyone who knows about DRM knows it’s nothing more than an end run on fair use. If section 1201 applied to patents, nobody would be allowed to own a wrench or screwdriver because they might have been used to make and sell copies of the latest automobiles.
These industry groups promised the US congress "exciting new media products, "if only DRM were protected by law". And of course, what they really meant by new products was the burglary of fair use from the public, and the packaging and resale of these stolen uses at a fee.
Now it gets even more fun for the consumer:
This, however, is merely the tip of the iceberg. If I read the recent articles correctly, new DRM by Cryptology Research, "protecting digital media" would also blatantly overstep the 5th (and 14th) amendments of the US constitution.
The complicated structure of this DRM concept is to embed the serial number and other information on the player used to decrypt the given media into any copies, compressed or otherwise, and to "revoke" said players’ access upon discovery on the internet of any files containing that serial number.
Now, the finding of that supposed key only justifies an accusation, but if this DRM simply acts upon this as in this concept, it effectively "breaks" someone’s player on a mere accusation. There is no due process of law before the person in question is robbed of his physical and paid for property, namely their player/decryption device.
Even if you think some "evil pirate’s" device should be killed, someone could have bought said player or drive second hand. A clerical error or a bug in the automated program used to "revoke" said devices could result in an innocent person’s player being destroyed.
It’s no better than the MPAA raiding someone’s house and taking a baseball bat to their computer on a similar accusation, and this DRM would have the same effect as the long thrown out idea of allowing copyright interests to remotely destroy people’s computers independently of judicial process.
I know what you ultraconservatives on the issue are thinking now: "That’s contract law though, they agreed to the terms". You’re wrong. By embedding this into the next generation of digital media standards, these organizations are robbing people of their choice to buy a product with a different copy protection.
There have also been recent judgments which show clickwrap/shrinkwrap agreements are not legally binding because they can’t be read first. But that has been their intent all along (search references on the SSSCA, and other proposed DRM mandate bills).
If it wasn’t plain that DRM violates the constitutional protections of individual property and privacy, at least THIS drm scheme should be obvious enough an abuse to bring about change.
I call on anyone who should read or stumble across this article to contact their congressmen and other organizations to point out this new abuse, and to push for an end to the tyrrany of section 1201 of the DMCA before it destroys even more of the amendments which make up the US bill of rights.
Other links
http://www.cryptography.com/technology/spdc/
http://p2pnet.net/story/3344
http://www.cryptography.com/technology/spdc/formatRequirements.html
Alexander E. Wehr
December 27th, 2004 at 2:58 pm
nutt
December 27th, 2004 at 4:58 pm
So where is your contribution?
December 27th, 2004 at 5:42 pm
I’ve been following this stuff since Napster, writing my elected officials (no doubt ending up on some kind of lists…), and ranting about it. I’m to the point where I say, “Give the SOBs (media thugs) EXACTLY what they want!” The more hostile to and unworkable for the consumer, the better. It will be the only thing that drives the public to “discover” the whole world of media out there that exists outside the walls and DRMs of the Big Brother Music & Movie cabal. BRING IT ON!!! WE DON’T NEED YOUR $HIT!!!
December 27th, 2004 at 6:21 pm
I don’t see how he is a nutt…..
Really now here’s a scenario for you.
You come home to find out your ‘digital media player’ no longer works (of course since it’s new it cost $500-$1000 to buy in the first place). A few calls later you discover that a movie you had paid $20 to watch at home (noticed I didn’t say owned) showed up on the internet. Turns out your MS-operating system was infiltrated (no say it’s not so!!! It can’t happen to a Ms operating system, they are super secure!) and the file was copied. The solution from the manufacturer, buy a new $500-$1000 ‘digital media player’ cause yours is disable, you bad person, you. Oh not to mention you need to buy (opps I mean pay again for the right to watch) a new copy of the movie as well.
Or how does this sound: your system get’s disabled because some one stole your kids ‘drm’d digital music player’ and released the songs on the internet. Now your whole music collection needs to be replaced as well.
Even if the hardware is not disabled and just the music itself is disabled. There’s a small fortune in new ‘drm’ cd’s that will need to be replaced.
Who’s going to police the people policing the ‘drm’ disabling feature (I’d call it a virus, what else kills a system?) I mean how long will it take them to figure out that when sales decline (what? sales decline? That’s not possible! It must be ’sharing’ that’s causing it!!) All they need to do is report that a few thousand drm files showed up on the internet (or put them out there ) so they can disable the files, and of course the users will have no choice but to buy the right to listen to them again.
December 28th, 2004 at 12:47 am
It’s being flamed =) must mean im doing something right if someone feels shaken enough to flame it.
I was actually referring more to a ring of DVD rippers buying players for a single ripping project, then reselling them to a pawn shop or the general public knowing theyll soon be disabled. (a likely tactic)
Some unlucky schmo then buys it with no illegal intent or knowledge of its prior uses, and to his great surprise finds its access “revoked”, effectively breaking his property.
Another likely scenario which is all too common with poorly made programs is that the wrong serial number is included in a “revocation” order, and thus the wrong player is revoked, resulting in the same breaking of an innocent person’s property.
The constitution calls for proper investigation and court battles before that kind of thing is legally allowed.
December 28th, 2004 at 1:09 am
The 5th and 14th amendments apply to the states and federal government. However, by passing the DMCA and protecting DRM measures described in this article it could be considered a violation.
Additionally, although i’m not familiar with the laws, there are federal provisions allowing criminal prosecution of people and private entities which violate the constitutional rights of others. (often used in the era of the civil rights movement by federal organizations to assure kkk members who had their local officials either bribed or idealogically aligned got their just pinishment for murdering and terrorizing african americans)
December 28th, 2004 at 3:50 am
The problem is that if all communications becomes intermediated by DRM manufacturers, where will we be able to discuss this political issue in order to get it fixed? DRM does not give control over communications to the copyright holders, it creates an intermediary between the sender and the receiver in a communication. This intermediary then has the technological ability to censor any communication it deems harmful to its own special interest, such as any criticism of DRM or related outsourcing of government policy to special interests.
We need to fight this strongly now while we still have a medium like the current internet which facilitates more open democratic discussion with much larger audiences than physical “town hall” meetings could.
Russell McOrmond — http://www.flora.ca/russell/
December 28th, 2004 at 3:31 pm
Hey, all you Republicrats and homeland security types, what if terrorists obtain some influence on DRM? It would be a good way to disable America’s electronics. Anyway, it sounds like this side ought to be brought up as well. What about crackers forging serial numbers of a device and posting an offending file on the net to have someones’ device disabled? If this happened to the congress things that pass these laws, do you think it would serve them right?
December 28th, 2004 at 4:09 pm
What do you mean “if”?
When you outlaw open public security research the way DMCA type laws do, you are only ensuring that “the bad guys” (however you define that) have the ability to learn and practise their craft while tyeing the hands of “the good guys” behind their backs. This just guaruntees that when the battles begin that “the bad guys” will always win.
DMCA and similar laws are in direct contradiction to any countries attempt to have experienced people in their country able to protect them against cyber-attack.
Russell McOrmond — http://www.flora.ca/
January 1st, 2005 at 5:03 pm
Well, that’s if they only disable that media!!
The recent fiasco with VALVE, when using steam if they found that someone was using a dodgy key (which was actually released by valve or steam), they would not only disable the person’s Half Life 2, they would actually disable your steam account, so people found that other games that they had properly purchased also were disabled … wow.
So can you imagine that if the riaa/mpaa decided to start this type of DRM then, in your scenario, not only would you lose the media you just purchased, but all of your other media!!
I am never going to buy anything from valve, or which uses steam!!
January 1st, 2005 at 5:12 pm
OK, so we all know that if we want to watch something on telly or listen to a radio show and we are not around we can use tape recorders and video recorders to record the show and listen to it later, if we forgot we could ask a friend if they had recorded it!!
Now with fast internet connections and compression if you miss a tv programme for instance and also forget to record it, you can just go and download it, why do some people think this wrong??