Defining DRM
p2p news view / p2pnet: I sent the following letter to the editor of Computer Dealer News:
In an article "Bull from the entertainment industry" (Computer Dealer News, July 14, 2006, Vol. 22, No. 10), Grant Buckler suggested that DRM has its place, but needs to have limits. One of the problems with the term Digital Rights Management and/or Digital Restrictions Management is that different people are operating with very different definitions.
From a technical standpoint I would define DRM as the application of a technical protection measure (TPM) to devices which are used to create, communicate or access digital content. While these TPMs are usually applied by device manufacturers based on agreements they have with copyright holders, it is important to remember that neither the copyright holder nor the manufacturer are the owners of these devices.
Imagine the builder of your home or the manufacturer of your car put locks on your doors and refused to give you the keys. They used the keys as a way to only allow you into your home when you have gained their permission to do so, and only under conditions they have set. The builder/manufacturer has made arrangements with other companies such that they will protect the interests of these third parties against you, the owner. The builder/manufacturer has also gone to various governments to make it illegal for you to remove their locks in order to put your own locks on, so that you can protect your property rights.
When understood this way, I believe most people would suggest that DRM has no place in a free and democratic society. Not only should we not allow the government to offer legal protection for this attack on our property rights, but we should be pushing for new laws which better protect our rights.
The Digital Copyright Canada forum and other supporters will soon be launching a petition to parliament to protect Information Technology Property Rights.
People can learn more here.
Russell McOrmond – p2pnet contributing editor
[McOrmond is an independent author (software and non-software) who uses modern business models and licensing (Free/Libre and Open Source Software, Creative Commons). He's also the CLUE policy coordinator.]
July 18th, 2006 at 9:26 pm
This is hard stuff to wrap ones mind around considering all the misinformation around DRM. I would call them lies, but I’m not convinced the entertainment industry is smart enough to know what they are saying is false.
If a file is “locked”, then anyone who is intended to receive it must be given the key for them to access it. Otherwise the CD that the locked content is on is just a coaster. This means that some people have the keys, and some people don’t. This is no different than books where some people have the book, and some people don’t. Those who don’t have the book just have to buy one.
Digital locks used in this way for content are no different than putting physical books in locked stores, something that should not be seen as controversial.
All of the problems with DRM, including what you mention, come from two things:
a) TPMs applied to devices by other than the owner of the device. This should be clearly illegal, as it is a circumvention of basic property rights.
b) Attempts by copyright holders to encode their content so that they can only be accessed on devices which have specific TPMs applied to them. This should be understood as a violation of basic competition/anti-trust laws.
If simple property rights on communications technology are protected, meaning that only the owner of the hardware is allowed to apply or authorize a TPM to be on their hardware, then none of the problems you mention can happen.
Check out the petition, and promote it to anyone you know who is a Canadian citizen or who is currently living in Canada.
July 18th, 2006 at 11:10 pm
“a) TPMs applied to devices by other than the owner of the device. This should be clearly illegal, as it is a circumvention of basic property rights.”
“b) Attempts by copyright holders to encode their content so that they can only be accessed on devices which have specific TPMs applied to them. This should be understood as a violation of basic competition/anti-trust laws.”
Under these terms what kind of DRM scheme would even be feasible? Are we talking about the owner of a playback device having to agree to “install” a TPM on said device in order to access certain content?
July 19th, 2006 at 6:00 am
There is definitely a problem with DRM. Even if you bought the work, it will never see the light of public domain. Several reasons for that. One is the lock will remain locked until the end of time should it survive that long. At some point the work will eventually become public domain. At that point the lock serves no purpose but to deny any sort of public access.
The far more likely future will be that at some point the work loses economic viability. At that point it will be thrown out of the back catalog and the storage vaults to make room for more valuable works to the cartels. However, no penalty is on the copyright holder to hold on to that work for public domain. The reason for the grant of copyright is to allow the holder a “limited time” protection to gain economic benefit. The copyright is the only reason it doesn’t start out as public domain and all works will eventually revert to this status. The most likely fate is that the original work will never survive intact to make it to public domain as it is now.
One of the points that should be part of the copyright law is that when it reaches the point of no longer being economically viable it should then become public domain. The holder should be required as part of the terms of copyright to maintain an original work for relinquishing into public domain libraries for public access at the end of the term of the copyright.
As it is today, nothing is making it into public domain unless the author willingly allows it.
July 19th, 2006 at 9:04 am
The electric power company put DRM in my home. If I don’t pay the bill, the DRM system shuts down the power in my home.
The power company used to have analog meters on the homes. These required a monthly visit by a meter reader. The analog meters were replaced by remotely read electronic DRM’d meters. Now there are no meter readers visiting the neighborhoods. As result the theft of electrical power has skyrocketed, offseting the savings in meter reading many times over.
Apparently the power company did not realize that the meter readers kept theft under check. An obvious thing.
To offset the theft (and rise in petroleum prices), the rates for consumption of electricity have been increased. This has further increased theft.
If you ask me, it is DRM gone haywire. It always does.
July 22nd, 2006 at 11:35 am
_*IF IT CAN BE SEEN/HEARD, IT CAN BE COPIED*_