EFF Releases Music DRM Guide 300
Chris Chiasson writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) recently created a plain English guide to several fair use restrictions that major online music services, such as Apple's iTunes, force on their customers via Digital Rights Management (DRM) laden music files and End User License Agreements (EULAs). An excerpt from the guide follows:
'Forget about breaking the DRM to make traditional uses like CD burning and so forth. Breaking the DRM or distributing the tools to break DRM may expose you to liability under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) even if you're not making any illegal uses.'
The EFF also lists four alternative music services which sell unrestricted files."
DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
Forget about breaking the DRM (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah forget about trying to break the DRM in iTunes cos like... uhh. you don't need to, to burn CDs.
Bad reporting (Score:3, Insightful)
preaching to the choir, blah blah (Score:5, Insightful)
the EFF need to get their guides printed onto paper and distributed to the public, buses, trains, in the street , through doors, offices, trams, subways, parking lots, schools , youth clubs, community centers
otherwise nothing will change, we (technologists/gurus/nerds etc) all know the ramifications of DRM and the threat it poses to society, but society doesnt know or even care about what they dont understand sick profiteers are trying to do
educate people, lots of them, quickly, using traditional methods, because this inteweb is not the answer to this problem
Re:Forget about breaking the DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not a flame; this is simply why I won't buy something from a service encumbered by DRM restrictions.
Re:Bad reporting (Score:5, Insightful)
If they were attempting to provide complete details on how iTunes works, then yes, things like the number of authorizable computers would have been important to have. But since they were only trying to show how the consumer can have a purchased product taken away from them, the example they provided was sufficient.
Re:DRM (Score:1, Insightful)
Also, let me add that "forcing on their customers" is a bit like saying that Microsoft is "forcing windows on windows users." People know the limitations of the DRM ahead of time, and if they're willing to accept it, how can you say that anything is being forced on them? OMG Ford forced 4 wheels and a gas pedal on me when I bought my SUV!@# What ever will I do!@#?
It's a choice... but for how long? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, DRM can and will be cracked, but that's not what it's about. The iTunes DRM can be cracked, too. It provides a major inconvenience, many hurdles for us to jump over just to use something we already bought & payed for.
About DVD-A's encryption being cracked, it wasn't What happened was a patch was released for WinDVD to redirect the output to a file instead of a sound card. You can bet the RIAA is working on a way to neutralize this.
Fair and unbiased (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow. Sounds like a balanced, fair, and unbiased review of the issues to me.
Good. (Score:4, Insightful)
However, I'm pretty cynical, so I instead expect laws to change to make restricted media the norm.
Wow... (Score:3, Insightful)
Force onto their customer? They held me up at gunpoint so I had no choice but to buy from the iTMS? If you buy music from iTunes, you're going to have DRM'ed files. Don't like it? Don't buy it.
It's not like music isn't available from other sources (both brick and mortar and online). But remember, those "easily" converted music CDs are starting to include DRM mechanisms as well.
Re:Forget about breaking the DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
The record companies have always been trying to force copy protection upon any medium. Any time a copying device gets on the market, they go wild! BTW, they force us to pay taxes on blank CDs because 'they are only used to copy music', but at the same time it remains illegal to copy them (totally ignoring the fact that I paid taxes to do so).
This DRM thing will not remain limited to those online songs, it will (try to) become a general 'feature', locking you down and threatening your electronic freedom.
Re:It's a choice (Score:2, Insightful)
No, it's not a choice. It stopped being a choice when they passed the DMCA.
"If I don't want DRM, I will buy from someplace that doesn't use it, buy the CD (assuming it isn't broken), or not buy it at all."
What, then, will you do when everything is distributed via DRM?
I'll tell you: you'll either 1) Buy things with DRM and basically live a rental-based existence where you cannot create without purchasing a "distribution license," 2) Become a felon for buying things with DRM then breaking it to actually make use of them, or 3) retreat to your cabin in the wilderness and live out a life without the DMCA.
"If you don't agree, don't enter into the agreement and go elsewhere for your music."
But, you see, software-based DRM is always cracked. That's why all of the big companies are working to embed it in the hardware of every PC manufactured.
They claim you can "turn it off," but the problem is that DRM will only actually work when it's a closed system. So it's basically a lie that you can turn it off. Sure, you can disable it, but you'll be disconnecting yourself from the Internet and everyone else by doing so.
In conclusion, "so many people are against DRM in any format for anyone" because DRM is not being presented as a choice. The DRM-supporters (large companies) have paid their congresspeople to enact the DMCA, thus establishing a universal contract without our consent.
The DMCA applies to everyone in this country (and many people in other countries, as can be seen from enforcement actions) and it exposes you to potential prison time not for doing anything wrong, not for infringing copyrights, not for plagiarism, not for any of these things... the DMCA exposes you to prison time for altering a product which you legally purchased.
That is why so many people fundamentally oppose DRM.
THIS JUST IN: (Score:5, Insightful)
The EFF says:
"EFF is a nonprofit group of passionate people -- lawyers, technologists, volunteers, and visionaries -- working to protect your digital rights."
But buried in the source to this very article is the following secret code:
License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by
requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Attribut
permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Reproduc
permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Distribu
permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Derivati
prohibits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Commerci
requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Notice"
This "code" restricts your rights to use the article. Even worse, each article might have a different license! Future articles might change their license at any time!
The facts: you read it, they still own it. Sounds like 1984? Read on.
Additional EFF article restrictions:
- Prohibits commercial re-use or re-mixing into a new article.
- Requires that the license and copyright be reproduced with the article.
- Requires that you credit the copyright holder and/or author.
Other articles using this same "licensing" could be even more restrictive!
Looking for alternatives? Here are some sites that don't use restrictive "copyright" and "licensing".
- Project Gutenberg http://promo.net/pg/ [promo.net]
- Public Domain Music http://www.pdinfo.com/ [pdinfo.com]
Re:DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
People on the greater average do NOT know the limitations ahead of time nor what DRM is. Walk down a street or hall in your local mall and randomly ask people if they know what DRM is.
People who research and are aware what they are buying are the minority.
People who go buy the next new toy because it's the latest fad tech/music toy because so and so has it and now they must have it to keep up with the Jonses don't research and educate them selves. That's too much trouble, they just want it to fill like equals to everyone else who's gone out and bought it. It's more of a indirect peer presure sort of thing.
So please shutup and do trip down a flight of stairs so I and others don't have to read your ignorant words and so there is more oxygen for the rest of us. Your taking up space!
How to kill DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
Like all brain-damaged products, the way to kill DRM is not to buy it. If the manufacturers can't make any money with it, they will drop it. That's how business works.
Sadly, few people have any idea of what's going on. I rmember trying to explain the Dmitry Sklyarov case to somebody and failing miserably.
I have several CDs that claim to be copy protected, but this seems to range from nasty warnings only, to CDs that refuse to play on windows boxes unless you play them with their player. My Linux boxes play them without comment.
Only one copy-protected CD (Face A Face B by Axelle Red) in my collection is in any way difficult to play - on my portable CD player, where it plays the first few seconds of each track, over and over. My car CD player plays it without comment, and my Linux boxes play it and will rip tracks from it until the cows come home.
I've never bought a DRMed tune from an online vendor, and never will. If enough people did this, all this nonsense would come to an end. When the marketplace speaks, business has no choice but to listen.
...laura
Re:DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
the geek population (and shame on them for buying DRM-crippled music when they should know better) that buys music online is a small fraction of the total number of purchasers.
so no, most people don't have any notion whatsoever of the artificial limitations imposed on them by the high priced music files.
Re:DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
That said, I do permit myself to buy from the iTMS, since I gave it some consideration and decided the DRM implementation isn't too intrusive (for my own needs, anyway). I do support alternative, DRM-free services, though, and encourage others to do the same.
Re:DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
If the media companies wanted the purchasers to know the limitations ahead of the purchase, then the media companies and the DRM companies would not go through so much marketing mumble-jumble in order to hide the fact that DRM is limiting the use of the media being purchased.
Re:Get rid of Apple DRM on Linux [thnx to DVD Jon] (Score:3, Insightful)
You said WTF!?. The 'F' is that I didn't contact Jon to ask him if I can posting the link to his program in a slashdot post.
You might say "WTF!? You don't have to ask permission to link". I would respond that the 'F' is that it is not illegal to link to his site, but it is not very nice if he has to pay for the bandwidth. So by not providing a click-able link I thought I was making sure that only those who really want to get his program will get there as opposed to having tens of thousands of slashdotters click on it just because it is something to do.
You're not buying, you're renting. (Score:4, Insightful)
When you "buy" a DVD, you do not actual own the copy, you have merely purchased a long term rental. The rental agreement lets you play it at home for an indefinite period (basically as long as the current type of player is still produced and/or yours still works) - subject to certain restrictions on some titles (e.g. being forced to watch the previews).
Instead of breaking the law wherever feasible, I think our crowd would be much more successful helping to enforce it. If the EFF could bring suit simply to force media companies to stop calling what they do "selling copies", and call them "long term rentals" instead, then the market would take care of the rest. There would still be a market for long term rentals - but you would also be able to actually buy a copy for more money than a long term rental (probably something around what video rental stores pay for their copy).
The best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it vigorously.
Re:Get rid of Apple DRM on Linux [thnx to DVD Jon] (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not a EULA gotcha, it's common sense.
If I buy a piece of software commonly known to be available for platforms X or Y and then decide later to switch to platform Z, I don't whine that the developer ripped me off because my X/Y software doesn't run on the Z it was never created to run on to begin with.
You started using the iTMS knowing full well you need iTunes to play these files and iTunes is only available for Windows and Mac. You had Windows, it was YOUR choice to switch to Linux. I'm sure there was other Windows software you couldn't use when you switched to Linux. Unfortunatly, without iTunes your purchases don't play. How exactly is Apple responsible for your choices?
Re:THIS JUST IN: (Score:3, Insightful)
These are more rights than you would have if they had not put this 'restrictive license' on this document. So, in fact, it is not restrictive at all! Bear in mind that when they explicitly prohibit commercial use, they are still not taking away any of your rights. What other copyrighted content is it okay for you to take and sell for commercial gain? I certainly hope you were being facetious, but you got an Insightful mod, so I felt I had to explain some things to at least four moderators. I, personally, thought it was funny, until I saw the moderation. Good links, by the way. And look up Lawrence Lessig and his books. He created the Creative Commons as a modern public domain - esque license, because he fears that the public domain will disappear and he wants to protect it. The Creative Commons is actually a pretty cool way to do that. As a content creator, it gives you a choice between the perhaps-too-restrictive copyright laws and the public domain, which gives you no rights as a creator.
Re:Get rid of Apple DRM on Linux [thnx to DVD Jon] (Score:3, Insightful)
As many a slashdotted site will tell you, slashdot readers RTFA. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of slashdot commenters in general.