To DRM or not to DRM
Wichita
by Danny R.
DRM which stands for Digital Rights Management has the purpose of curtailing piracy. Piracy would be the illegal copying of movies, music, books, etc. without proper compensation of the copyright holder. I do not condone piracy, however I do advocate the fair use of material.
A question that comes down then, if I purchase a song or a movie, do I have the right to listen or watch this purchase on any medium of my choosing? Should I be allowed to make a backup copy in the case the original gets damaged? DRM, prevents this from happening. The RIAA and the MPAA have both stated, that users should have to pay for every copy for every medium they wish to use their purchase on.
What does this mean? I'll use the iPod and iTunes as examples. Lets say I purchase a song from iTunes and I want to be able to listen to this song while I go running. I have two options, burn a CD, which doesn't work to well when I'm running or purchase an iPod. But lets say I don't like the iPod and want to use the Microsoft Zune, I won't be able to listen to the song purchased on iTunes because of DRM. DRM prevents a song I legally purchased from being able to be played on the Zune.
Using the example, I could break the DRM on the iTunes purchase and then bring that song to the Zune, or I could burn a CD then rip the CD, then bring the song to the Zune. One method I'm breaking the law, the second method I'm doing more work plus spending more money to burn the CD plus giving the RIAA more money for a song I already legally purchased. Yes, the RIAA gets money for every CD-R purchase, because you might use it to burn a song on to.
If DRM is easily broken, as I stated, then why is it present? The only conclusion is to stop casual piracy of software, music, movies, etc. So what is casual piracy? This would be if, I had a song and copied it for a friend without charging my friend. Professional pirates on the other hand, would charge for the work in making the copy.
Where does fair use come into play then? Lets go back to my example, I like iTunes and purchase a lot of music from iTunes. However, I really do not like the iPod(I do like the Sensa though), but I can't play a song from iTunes on my Sensa directly. This is because iTunes purchases only work directly on an iPod. So, I'm forced to burn CDs, then rip them, then bring them to my Sensa. This is both costly, and naïve. I could probably just defeat the DRM on the songs themselves, but then I'd be in violation of the DMCA, and well I don't feel the terrible need to be breaking the law. However, wouldn't fair use cover that?
So, if DRM doesn't stop the professional pirate and it prevents the fair use of copyrighted material(given the choice of spending more money or breaking the law), then should DRM be necessary?
In defense of DRM, it has the purpose of attempting to stop mass piracy, but clearly it fails. So is it needed, necessary, or should it go away? There is much more to this topic than what I had presented, and I encourage all to read how it may affect you personally. For me, it is an annoyance because I like iTunes, but it makes life difficult for me when I don't want to use an iPod. So I don't think DRM does what it claims it tries to do, and prevents me from fair use of things I've legally purchased.
Maybe to prevent piracy, we just need to give consumers what they want. Good entertainment for an appropriate cost and perhaps piracy would begin to go down.
.
DRM which stands for Digital Rights Management has the purpose of curtailing piracy. Piracy would be the illegal copying of movies, music, books, etc. without proper compensation of the copyright holder. I do not condone piracy, however I do advocate the fair use of material.
A question that comes down then, if I purchase a song or a movie, do I have the right to listen or watch this purchase on any medium of my choosing? Should I be allowed to make a backup copy in the case the original gets damaged? DRM, prevents this from happening. The RIAA and the MPAA have both stated, that users should have to pay for every copy for every medium they wish to use their purchase on.
What does this mean? I'll use the iPod and iTunes as examples. Lets say I purchase a song from iTunes and I want to be able to listen to this song while I go running. I have two options, burn a CD, which doesn't work to well when I'm running or purchase an iPod. But lets say I don't like the iPod and want to use the Microsoft Zune, I won't be able to listen to the song purchased on iTunes because of DRM. DRM prevents a song I legally purchased from being able to be played on the Zune.
Using the example, I could break the DRM on the iTunes purchase and then bring that song to the Zune, or I could burn a CD then rip the CD, then bring the song to the Zune. One method I'm breaking the law, the second method I'm doing more work plus spending more money to burn the CD plus giving the RIAA more money for a song I already legally purchased. Yes, the RIAA gets money for every CD-R purchase, because you might use it to burn a song on to.
If DRM is easily broken, as I stated, then why is it present? The only conclusion is to stop casual piracy of software, music, movies, etc. So what is casual piracy? This would be if, I had a song and copied it for a friend without charging my friend. Professional pirates on the other hand, would charge for the work in making the copy.
Where does fair use come into play then? Lets go back to my example, I like iTunes and purchase a lot of music from iTunes. However, I really do not like the iPod(I do like the Sensa though), but I can't play a song from iTunes on my Sensa directly. This is because iTunes purchases only work directly on an iPod. So, I'm forced to burn CDs, then rip them, then bring them to my Sensa. This is both costly, and naïve. I could probably just defeat the DRM on the songs themselves, but then I'd be in violation of the DMCA, and well I don't feel the terrible need to be breaking the law. However, wouldn't fair use cover that?
So, if DRM doesn't stop the professional pirate and it prevents the fair use of copyrighted material(given the choice of spending more money or breaking the law), then should DRM be necessary?
In defense of DRM, it has the purpose of attempting to stop mass piracy, but clearly it fails. So is it needed, necessary, or should it go away? There is much more to this topic than what I had presented, and I encourage all to read how it may affect you personally. For me, it is an annoyance because I like iTunes, but it makes life difficult for me when I don't want to use an iPod. So I don't think DRM does what it claims it tries to do, and prevents me from fair use of things I've legally purchased.
Maybe to prevent piracy, we just need to give consumers what they want. Good entertainment for an appropriate cost and perhaps piracy would begin to go down.
.
Hank Price said:
Hey Danny,
I think the biggest problem in general is the rapid pace of technology. We have a regulatory and legislative system that takes years to respond to problems with effective laws and the technology advances from month to month.
Ipods will be obsolete before there can be effective laws to regulate them.
Hank
I think the biggest problem in general is the rapid pace of technology. We have a regulatory and legislative system that takes years to respond to problems with effective laws and the technology advances from month to month.
Ipods will be obsolete before there can be effective laws to regulate them.
Hank
Danny said:
Hank,
That is possible. I think copyright law could have worked even in a digital world as it was(prior to the DMCA). DRM, is one way of attempting to prevent piracy, however it does fail at that and ultimately it generally just prevents some people from fair use purposes of items legally purchased.
Sure, and I'll admit this, if I were the one making the money I may well see it like the RIAA does. However, I currently think it stands to reason that if I purchase something legally, can I not use it legally on different devices or playing mediums? If it is DRM's, the DMCA(Digital Millennium Copyright Act) says I can't(more or less).
That is possible. I think copyright law could have worked even in a digital world as it was(prior to the DMCA). DRM, is one way of attempting to prevent piracy, however it does fail at that and ultimately it generally just prevents some people from fair use purposes of items legally purchased.
Sure, and I'll admit this, if I were the one making the money I may well see it like the RIAA does. However, I currently think it stands to reason that if I purchase something legally, can I not use it legally on different devices or playing mediums? If it is DRM's, the DMCA(Digital Millennium Copyright Act) says I can't(more or less).
Vaughn Tolle said:
I'm wondering, Danny, if the iTunes/iPod thing isn't separate from any intellectual property issues. That is, the money paid for a downloaded product from iTunes isn't really a royalty for the performer, but instead a fee paid to Apple for the engineering work, if you will, so that the download will only play on an iPod, thereby encouraging the purchase of iPods. A reverse spin on the old Gillette marketing scheme; "give" the razor away, to sell the blades.
It is my understanding (as one who is totally not familiar with iTunes, etc.) that much of what may be downloaded from iTunes is available from other sources (both lawful and unlawful). As an example, I may d/l a podcast to my computer in mp3 format; then, utilizing certain utilities, load it onto my iPod for portability. I may also burn it to CD, should I want. I'm using a podcast example here, rather than music; the example in my mind is the "Inside Colby" podcasts for which I pay nothing if I d/l the same from the college site; but, I could subscribe to iTunes, and d/l from there to an iPod, upon payment of a small fee.
More directly to your point of "fair use". I am sympathetic to your wishes, and share in them as well. I'm without a good answer at this point, giving credence to the intellectual property rights of the creator of the property versus the right of the purchaser to fair use.
It is my understanding (as one who is totally not familiar with iTunes, etc.) that much of what may be downloaded from iTunes is available from other sources (both lawful and unlawful). As an example, I may d/l a podcast to my computer in mp3 format; then, utilizing certain utilities, load it onto my iPod for portability. I may also burn it to CD, should I want. I'm using a podcast example here, rather than music; the example in my mind is the "Inside Colby" podcasts for which I pay nothing if I d/l the same from the college site; but, I could subscribe to iTunes, and d/l from there to an iPod, upon payment of a small fee.
More directly to your point of "fair use". I am sympathetic to your wishes, and share in them as well. I'm without a good answer at this point, giving credence to the intellectual property rights of the creator of the property versus the right of the purchaser to fair use.
Nathan said:
I have mixed feelings on this one. Before I deployed to Iraq I wouldn't share my music with my friends, I had deleted all my pirated material and I would buy my music from itunes. I would also buy TV shows like Lost from itunes too.
Well, in Iraq, they have shared drives on the base network.
I have never seen so much stuff so readily accessable before.
I am talking about 3 Terrabites of info plus!
They had thousands of movies, almost every major TV show (all the episodes), short movies, music galore...
Well, we would download movies and TV shows to keep our sanity.
It kept us able to keep up with the latest episodes of Lost, Heroes, 24, The unit, and many other TV shows too.
So now I am sitting here with about 600 GB of illegally copied movies, TV shows, and music.
I also use Daemon tools and an ISO copier now too so I don't have to have every CD loaded I want to play becuase it was very inconvienent in Iraq.
Oh well.
Well, in Iraq, they have shared drives on the base network.
I have never seen so much stuff so readily accessable before.
I am talking about 3 Terrabites of info plus!
They had thousands of movies, almost every major TV show (all the episodes), short movies, music galore...
Well, we would download movies and TV shows to keep our sanity.
It kept us able to keep up with the latest episodes of Lost, Heroes, 24, The unit, and many other TV shows too.
So now I am sitting here with about 600 GB of illegally copied movies, TV shows, and music.
I also use Daemon tools and an ISO copier now too so I don't have to have every CD loaded I want to play becuase it was very inconvienent in Iraq.
Oh well.
Danny said:
VT,
You are correct in much of itunes offers being available elsewhere. But the services I was interested do monthly fees vs. per song charges. Not against monthly fees, but 15/mo when I only download about 2 or 3 songs from iTunes doesn't seem equitable to me. Plus, if I were to leave that service all my song quit working.
So, for the moment iTunes it is. Plus, iTunes has done a better job of introducing new artists than other services that I've tried. So I have my reasons for iTunes, much like I have my reasons for not using iPods. Now if Steve actually thinks he can get rid of DRM(which he says he is trying to do, then I'm all for it!).
You are correct in much of itunes offers being available elsewhere. But the services I was interested do monthly fees vs. per song charges. Not against monthly fees, but 15/mo when I only download about 2 or 3 songs from iTunes doesn't seem equitable to me. Plus, if I were to leave that service all my song quit working.
So, for the moment iTunes it is. Plus, iTunes has done a better job of introducing new artists than other services that I've tried. So I have my reasons for iTunes, much like I have my reasons for not using iPods. Now if Steve actually thinks he can get rid of DRM(which he says he is trying to do, then I'm all for it!).
Vaughn Tolle said:
So, how to allow fair use of a lawfully purchased item and yet avoid piracy. Do we encode an algorithm that allows for a certain number of copies to be made, then does not allow for further copying? There are many negatives to this, IMHO; for example, I'm allowed to make four copies of product "X", then not allowed any further copies. BTW, when copied, the copies have code which prohibits the copying of the authorized copy. I've made my lawful number of copies, with the desired product on all electronic "homes" I want. Then, a problem erupts on one of the "homes"; I would like to make another copy for this site, but I cannot. Should there be a way to do so, by calling a toll free number, proving I'm a lawful owner, etc., in order for me to make an additional copy? Should there be an additional charge? Should the initial cost of the d/l include presumptive royalties for the maximum number of copies allowed?
These are a few questions I have. I'm all for fair use, and agree that such should occur. How do we then protect against piracy, which I am firmly against, as is Danny? As Danny correctly posts, the "professional" pirates are able to circumvent DRM; most amateur "pirates" likely would be able to do so if they want to invest the time, etc. Authors, composers, artists, are all entitled to protection of their property rights; is the RIAA approach the only meaningful one? Lots of questions, no real answers from me.
These are a few questions I have. I'm all for fair use, and agree that such should occur. How do we then protect against piracy, which I am firmly against, as is Danny? As Danny correctly posts, the "professional" pirates are able to circumvent DRM; most amateur "pirates" likely would be able to do so if they want to invest the time, etc. Authors, composers, artists, are all entitled to protection of their property rights; is the RIAA approach the only meaningful one? Lots of questions, no real answers from me.
Vaughn Tolle said:
This debate is a continuation of other issues in this area. Many years ago, a client lawfully purchased certain music, with which they programmed a "music on hold" feature for the telephone system. Over the horizon comes ASCAP, demanding 1) cease and desist; 2) payment of back royalties. The legal background on this is arcane, but suffice it to say that the "rebroadcast" of the music over the telephone system is not fair use within the current legal meaning of the term. Thus, royalties were owed, the case settled, and the client returned to silence while a caller was on hold.
Danny said:
VT,
Well my thoughts are more watermark the music(slight degredation in sound quality, but probably not noticeable to anybody). Then this watermark would be used to identify the purchaser of said music.
Again, like DRM, it could likely be removed some how, but if people then have unfettered access to their music on the mediums they want, then are going to be less likely to pirate the music, software, movie, etc.
Digital watermarking technology could be one possible solution. This is really the way I think it could work. Limiting the number of times something can be copied would imply having to install software on the individuals computer(reference Sony/BMG and their rootkit fiasco). And I'm not entirely certain that would really meet the needs of everybody involved.
Well my thoughts are more watermark the music(slight degredation in sound quality, but probably not noticeable to anybody). Then this watermark would be used to identify the purchaser of said music.
Again, like DRM, it could likely be removed some how, but if people then have unfettered access to their music on the mediums they want, then are going to be less likely to pirate the music, software, movie, etc.
Digital watermarking technology could be one possible solution. This is really the way I think it could work. Limiting the number of times something can be copied would imply having to install software on the individuals computer(reference Sony/BMG and their rootkit fiasco). And I'm not entirely certain that would really meet the needs of everybody involved.
Loading....