What happens with DRM in the real world

[the.Mtn.Man]

This article highlights many of the reasons I prefer using Linux and open source software.

[gmw]

I'm a bit late coming to the party on this one, but wanted to add a couple of thoughts.

Originally Posted by Catlady

The article seemed over the top. Isn't it enough that DRM interferes with the paying customer's legitimate use of the material?

The problem with discussing legitimate use is the implication that if we could agree on what was legitimate then DRM that makes that distinction is okay. Such agreement could possibly be reached, and it is not unreasonable for companies to try and protect their investment. But, even if that happened, DRM* is not okay.

The central point of the article is that for DRM to work effectively (not be easily removed) it must hide some parts of a computer from the owner. And, as Sony so clearly demonstrated for us, such mechanisms will quickly be taken advantage of by malware programs.

In essence the article argues: DRM = lower security.

This equation is pretty much built-in to the technical requirements of intrusive forms of DRM, so denying a user the right to remove software that makes their system less secure is something that law makers need to seriously reconsider.


* Using DRM in the same way as the article. DRM can also be used as a term that covers such things as watermarks, and other non-intrusive forms of protection, but such forms don't necessarily have the same impact on security as the article describes.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by gmw

I'm a bit late coming to the party on this one, but wanted to add a couple of thoughts.


The problem with discussing legitimate use is the implication that if we could agree on what was legitimate then DRM that makes that distinction is okay. Such agreement could possibly be reached, and it is not unreasonable for companies to try and protect their investment. But, even if that happened, DRM* is not okay.

The central point of the article is that for DRM to work effectively (not be easily removed) it must hide some parts of a computer from the owner. And, as Sony so clearly demonstrated for us, such mechanisms will quickly be taken advantage of by malware programs.

In essence the article argues: DRM = lower security.

This equation is pretty much built-in to the technical requirements of intrusive forms of DRM, so denying a user the right to remove software that makes their system less secure is something that law makers need to seriously reconsider.


* Using DRM in the same way as the article. DRM can also be used as a term that covers such things as watermarks, and other non-intrusive forms of protection, but such forms don't necessarily have the same impact on security as the article describes.

And thus we go from a "I should have the right to do whatever I want with my purchases" argument to a "DRM is already (or should be) illegal according to the rules for basic consumer security rights" argument.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

And thus we go from a "I should have the right to do whatever I want with my purchases" argument to a "DRM is already (or should be) illegal according to the rules for basic consumer security rights" argument.

Yes, because the first argument has never been true with regard to books (and many other things for that matter). The second argument is about both individual consumer protection as well as the wider implications of what could happen if millions of machines with DRM were hijacked by malware intent on attacking other systems.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by gmw

Yes, because the first argument has never been true with regard to books (and many other things for that matter).

I would modify "I should have the right to do whatever I want with my purchases" to "I should have the right to personally use my purchases however I want in the privacy of my own home".

After that, I have no problem with it - and the law (here at least) is still wrangling with that, having not quite given in for good to the heavy USAn commercial and political pressure quite yet. We more or less settled it a while back as far as DVD region restrictions go; but book digital restrictions haven't caught up yet.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by gmw

Yes, because the first argument has never been true with regard to books (and many other things for that matter). The second argument is about both individual consumer protection as well as the wider implications of what could happen if millions of machines with DRM were hijacked by malware intent on attacking other systems.

The first argument is debatable (with meera's caveat), (and I don't feel like doing so right now, so fill in rant here ) the second argument is not.

[sirmaru]

Laws are made by legislatures in each jurisdiction. If you don't like a law, wage a PR campaign to the legislators to change it.

In my jurisdiction DRM removal violates the law. I tend to follow the law. Plus, for my own uses of just reading an eBook once there is no need for me to back up any eBook as long as I can read it after buying it.

[gmw]

simaru, your situation is one of the reasons why the linked article is especially significant and worth calling attention to. Many people believe that DRM only effects where and how they can read a book, and as long as they can read it when they buy it they just don't care. But the fact is that there have been some forms of DRM that intrude on your system such that it has become less secure all the time. Any law that requires you to submit passively to such intrusion needs review.

ETA: Or maybe, if they want to keep the law as it is, they should require the suppliers of such DRM to be responsible for all damages caused by it - after all, if the user is not legally permitted to remove it then only the supplier can be responsible.

[FacebookVirus]

Originally Posted by meeera

I would modify "I should have the right to do whatever I want with my purchases" to "I should have the right to personally use my purchases however I want in the privacy of my own home".

I legally purchase a knife, therefore I have the right to use it however I want in the privacy of my own home.

Fair use isn't equivalent to murder although to hear some speak of pirating - which many think is the same - it isn't much different. But the "in my own home" argument doesn't go very far.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by FacebookVirus

I legally purchase a knife, therefore I have the right to use it however I want in the privacy of my own home.

Fair use isn't equivalent to murder although to hear some speak of pirating - which many think is the same - it isn't much different. But the "in my own home" argument doesn't go very far.

Yeah, I did that whole thing where I figured people reading about DRM, copyright and fair use would just assume stuff like "so long as it doesn't involve stabbing people in the chest/making terrorist bombs/constructing a hideous plague virus to destroy the world".

To try to come up with a useful analogy: say, people who are chatting about backyard chicken ordinances and their wish to raise a small flock for eggs with unreasonable council imposition. Within the scope of that conversation, they usually just assume that when they're talking about the right to produce their own food on their own property, that they're not about to, I don't know, use their chickens to culture a new strain of salmonella and deliberately infest the town water supply with it. Or freeze sharpened drumsticks into stabbing implements. Or... I dunno. I give up. Use your common sense.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by meeera

I give up. Use your common sense.

Unfortunately, for every law that was passed because an over protective or self-important control freak was phobic about something that was never a danger to society, there is another that was passed because a senseless person did something mindbogglingly stupid that caused a danger to society that no one with any common sense could have predicted.

ApK

[sirmaru]

Originally Posted by gmw

simaru, your situation is one of the reasons why the linked article is especially significant and worth calling attention to. Many people believe that DRM only effects where and how they can read a book, and as long as they can read it when they buy it they just don't care. But the fact is that there have been some forms of DRM that intrude on your system such that it has become less secure all the time. Any law that requires you to submit passively to such intrusion needs review.

ETA: Or maybe, if they want to keep the law as it is, they should require the suppliers of such DRM to be responsible for all damages caused by it - after all, if the user is not legally permitted to remove it then only the supplier can be responsible.

eBook DRM does not change our eBook or PC operating systems to the best of my knowledge. If it did, it would be intrusive and unacceptable and may violate other laws.

However, Operating System copyright protection IS intrusive and rightly so. It is linked to our PC purchases.

Maybe eBook readers should campaign to their legislators to have all eBooks meet a common form of protection whereby they would be readable on all eReader equipment owned by the same user. Then the need for DRM removal would shrink.

There is still a need to prevent illegal sharing of eBooks.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by ApK

Unfortunately, for every law that was passed because an over protective or self-important control freak was phobic about something that was never a danger to society, there is another that was passed because a senseless person did something mindbogglingly stupid that caused a danger to society that no one with any common sense could have predicted.

And hard cases make bad law.

Is it really that necessary, in this forum about ebook DRM, to handwave about the slippery slope towards family murder? That's all I'm saying.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by meeera

And hard cases make bad law.

Is it really that necessary, in this forum about ebook DRM, to handwave about the slippery slope towards family murder? That's all I'm saying.

Couple different issues.
1. No one (well, no one that I take seriously) is claiming a slippery slope there, they are merely making the legitimate reductio ad absurdum argument that the statement about "doing whatever they want in their home" doesn't settle the matter, and the real matters of fair use, value of copyright to society, etc, still need to be directly addressed.

2. I was actually writing because I thought your "common sense" plea was applying to the handling of copyright matters. I see now that it was applying to the use of analogies, so never mind, I'll propose an alternate response:

2A. By trying to make a "more common sense" analogy, you risk going down the path of thinking that the matters are equivalent. Physical property of any kind is not the same as intellectual property and the rights and restrictions concerning each SHOULD NOT be considered analogous.
It's the same point I've repeatedly tried to make elsewhere about not confusing "books" with "ebook" just books someone chose names with 4 letters in common. The rules of one concern the cost, sales and transfer of paper and ink and glue, and it's incorrect to try to equate those rules with digital ephemera. IOW, ebooks shouldn't be thought of like paper books, and if they shouldn't be thought of as paperbooks, they certainly shouldn't be thought of as chickens, etc.

So the only value I see in analogies here is to illustrate mistakes in arguments, like "anything is OK in my home" argument, NOT to try to claim that what works in the analogy will work for IP matters. If they ever do share elements that work the same, it's coincidence, and the exception, not the rule by which other rules must necessarily be made.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by ApK

It's the same point I've repeatedly tried to make elsewhere about not confusing "books" with "ebook" just books someone chose names with 4 letters in common. The rules of one concern the cost, sales and transfer of paper and ink and glue, and it's incorrect to try to equate those rules with digital ephemera. IOW, ebooks shouldn't be thought of like paper books, and if they shouldn't be thought of as paperbooks, they certainly shouldn't be thought of as chickens, etc.

I'm more than happy to talk specifics. And I think that the "within the [virtual and physical] confines of my own home" is a far _more_ useful construct with ebook DRM than it is with physical objects like knives (or even chickens). It is one way of defining a domain of fair use - and I'm talking about defining a reasonable domain of fair use now, not addressing current shifting and globally varying common-law definitions of fair use or fair dealing.

I really struggle to think of any way in which at-home DRM-breakage and format-shifting can possibly harm anyone. Unless you stretch a point and try to claim that it's reasonable to make a husband and wife each buy a copy of the same book and that spousal sharing is a criminally harmful "lost sale", or that every time a person changes device brand they should have to re-buy all your books, or they are "harming" an author/publisher who doesn't get to sell them the same book twice simply because two device manufacturers chose two different systems.

And if DRM breakage for home personal use doesn't harm anyone, it shouldn't be illegal.

eta: or, to tl;dr myself: maybe I should just have the right to personally use my digital purchases however I want in the privacy of my own home.