DRM Critique Airs On National Public Radio 353
An anonymous reader writes to point out that a critique of Digital Rights Management made it onto the mainstream media this morning. NPR's Marketplace Morning Report ran a piece noting that with the demise of the VHS format we risk losing fair-use rights since we now have only digital media. From the article: "As our country moves forward to regulate digital copying, I urge us all to bear in mind T. S. Eliot's famous saying. 'Good poets borrow; great poets steal.'"
Missed it. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think they are looking at the past through rose-colored glasses a bit here. The owners of copyright material have always made efforts to restrict duplication, even in the not-so-good-ol-days of analog tape. Drop a quick "VHS copy protection" into Google and you will see countless references of the restrictive nature of that media, both on the audio and video tracks. Analog audio tapes included a pleasnt high-pitched screeching boobytrap (spoiler signal) for would-be copiers.
It is not the death of the analog media that represents the end of part of our culture--and the risk of lost rights--as the commentary claims. It is the lack of spine in our leaders to stand up for what is right. It is the lack of foresight and hindsight on the part of the copyright owners and the consumers that patronize them. Make some noise about that, NPR.
I would also like to point out the self-destructive nature of the analog media they are pining over. About one third of the VHS tapes that remain in my collection are playable. The first DVD I ever bought does not skip once.
Re:A thousand Slashdot readers curse T.S. Eliot... (Score:3, Interesting)
Last week I went to a wedding. While there I stole a kiss from the bride. So why can I steal a kiss but I can't steal a poem?
I for one, am praising T.S. Eliot!
Re:Incorrect (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, though, you still have fair use rights. The DMCA blocks one possible avenue of exercising those rights, but there are others. You can't crack the encryption on a DVD to extract a clip for your review, but you can still connect the DVD player's analog output to a capture card, or point a camcorder at the screen.
Re:VHS has little to do with it. (Score:4, Interesting)
The fewer rights you transfer from the owner, the lower the sale price of the artwork. Media price isn't tied to production costs (if it were, small indie artists would be much more expensive, because their relative costs per unit would be way higher than the "big" pop artists). Instead, it's tied to the level of the licensing. Copies for renting out or public performance are substantially more expensive than the "home use" versions (even dating back to VHS and vinyl), even though they contain the exact same product. Likewise, digital files contain the same content (ignoring the low quality currently offered) for a lower price because they are transfers of fewer rights. This isn't to say that the labels' pricing for mp3s isn't greedy; that's a separate issue, but the point is that the price is lower, and by enough that it's starting to make a difference.
It's not solely about materials cost, and it isn't in other markets, either. The ingredients McDonald's purchases aren't the big reason why the food's bad for you--it's the method. Same reason why good furniture is expensive: the wood is expensive, but so is the craftsmanship and the process.
Re:Yet another thing... (Score:3, Interesting)
Have you heard of a lawspeaker [wikipedia.org]? Here's a good article [utoronto.ca]:
I'm inclined to agree with you; our laws are the legal equivalent of spaghetti code. They're poorly crafted - too permissive in places, too restrictive in others, too complicated altogether. When most citizens break laws during the course of a normal day, something's wrong with the laws.
Re:Missed it. (Score:4, Interesting)
What are you talking about? Since the inception of copyright you did not have the right to copy a copyrighted work and distribute it without permission. But, the costs made doing this in any large scale impractical and therefore made copyright infringement more uncommon and easier to identify and prosecute... and thereby protect the copyright holder. Low cost and readily available means of duplication and distribution completely blew that inherent protection out of the water. So now copyright is being infringed upon left-and-right.
The DMCA is inherently evil. The DMCA (or something like it) is the only way to protect the integrity of DRM, so DRM must also be evil. If DRM is the only way to protect copyright, then copyright must be evil.
Why is the DMCA inherently evil? The DMCA is NOT the only way to protect the integrity of DRM... and what kind of logical transference principles did you just manufacture here. DRM is not the only way to protect copyright (they've been doing that for years without it). Your logic is laughable and indicative of a anti-DRM fanboi.
Look... I understand that DRM can be used by copyright holders to limit the use of a piece of media and create all types of other fees and crap. I understand that and it's an issue that needs to be considered and looked into. That said... they still have a right to protect the content they've created or invested in. The law says they do... tossing out DRM and copyright all together isn't realistic.
Re:Incorrect (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes. Yes, it does. And before this degenerates into a 'yes it does, no it doesn't' slapfest, it might be best to analyze the underpinnings of the two sides.
The 'no' side is predicated upon the basic (and I believe ultimately erroneous) assumption that some rights are 'inherent'; that is, they literally inhere to (i.e. dwell within) certain classes of beings by virtue of those beings merely existing. This is the only way that one could argue that an unexerciseable right is still a right; it ontologically exists but is 'suppressed' in a manner of speaking by prevailing local conditions. It is certainly *possible* that this view is correct, but I think it problematic because it requires a large degree of epistemic faith, that is, that certain things exist of which we have absolutely no detectable evidence and yet are firmly believed must still exist. Such claims are always rooted in metaphysical arrogance and basically cash out as follows: "the world *must* work this way (despite lack of evidence that it does) because if it didn't, my word-view would collapse!" American society, and world-view, is predicated upon the inherency of certain rights, some of which are listed explicitly in black-and-white in the Declaration of Independence, and others are implied strongly in the Bill of Rights.
The 'yes' side posits the epistemologically more reasonable position that rights adhere to their subjects, and are created, maintained, divested, and destroyed by some agency independent of mere existence. That is, either the agent or some agency on behalf of the agent must use force (take action in any form) to guarantee that the 'right' adheres to the agent and has functional substance. Absent that force, the right dissipates. This seems much more in keeping with evidence observable through the course of human history.
Rights are only such if they can be cashed out into reality. Otherwise, they are just pretty words on paper. I agree with you on the very limited point that rights don't depend on just government, and so your statement "If your government doesn't protect your rights, it doesn't mean you don't still have them." is quite true. There are other means to project force to secure the practical adherence of a right beyond the reliance upon a government, and in fact it would be foolish in many cases to depend on the government to secure some of those rights. But, it does not then logically follow that, as you state, "everyone has rights". There are some people who do not use force and for whom no force is expended to adhere rights to them. Victims of genocide come to mind as the easiest example. They are deprived of rights; literally, they do not possess any.
Re:Yet another thing... (Score:3, Interesting)
For more information on this, there is a fantastic Cato Book Forum [cato.org] on this subject.
Here's a great quote from FDR's attorney general, Robert Jackson (mentioned in the video):
With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in this realm--in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.
Keep in mind, he made that speech [roberthjackson.org], the body of federal criminal law was less than half the size it is today.
If it's property... (Score:5, Interesting)
This would limit copyright holders from hording just for the sake of hording, as they would have to pay for it. We would see large numbers of works currently under copyright, pushed out to the public domain as a tax savings. It would not prevent anyone that is currently making a profit from their works from continuing to do so as they would be encourage to declare a fair market value for their works to properly balance protection and tax liability. It would limit the outrageous lawsuits as the value of the work would be pre-determined.
DRM will kill itself (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Missed it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Wrong. Copyright refers to copyright law. Copyright law WAS good at one point. It doesn't even remotely resemble what it used to be. So no, copyright is not good. Protecting it is not good. DRM may not be inherently evil, but that doesn't matter a bit since it has only been used to enforce the perversion of copyright law that exists now. Furthermore, the evil media giants will only be forced to change if we stop supporting this crap they're calling copyright law, and stop pretending that it's a good thing and that it deserves to be respected. They got greedy and deserve to be punished for it. Retroactive copyright extensions? Terms longer than a human lifespan? Where the hell did the bargain between artists and the public go? They were supposed to get protection for a limited time, and then the work was supposed to become part of the public domain, and free for all to do whatever they want with. Nothing that was copyrighted has passed into the public domain for decades. We're supposed to be OK with that? I'm certainly not. It's not going to get any better if everyone keeps accepting the status quo either.
Re:Missed it. (Score:5, Interesting)
So, what you are saying is that when the copyright social contract was made a few hundred years ago, the average Joe really didn't give up much because it was next to impossible for him to make a copy anyway. Joe gave away something of no value (the right to make copies that he couldn't possibly make in the first place) in exchange for encouraging creators to create.
So, now that any Joe can make as many copies as he wants for almost zero cost, don't you think it is time for the contract to be renegotiated? After all, what was a good deal for Joe 100 years is no longer a good deal anymore. Isn't that what a smart businessman would do in the same situation?
After all, copyright only exists at Joe's discretion anyway. If the public collectively decides that copyright is no longer a worthwhile bargain, well, that would be the end of copyright now wouldn't it?
The "Progress Clause" (Score:5, Interesting)
And in either case, you apparently do not have a Constitutionally protected right to copy media even under the First Amendment, because the Progress Clause grants "the exclusive right" to the creators. So, does the First Amendment override and destroy the Progress Clause? Or did the Founders understand the First Amendment to not cover copyright (which means there was a large hole knocked in it from the beginning)? I don't know the answer here, but there's troubling ambiguity even just from trying to figure out the original intent of the Constitution.
Dead Letter / Jefferson's Taper (Score:4, Interesting)
A letter by Jefferson [uchicago.edu] presented his idea that "the exclusive right to invention [is] given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society." He wrote that "natural law" or "universal law" or "nature" was the source of our rights. He distinguished between those rights "derived from nature" and those from "the gift of social law," putting patent/copyright firmly in the latter category and questioning its practical worth even in that capacity.
Re:Missed it. (Score:1, Interesting)
You're right. IF the technology were able to perfectly distinguish between all allowed and disallowed uses, there would be nothing inherently wrong with it. It is merely enforcing the law regarding copyright.
The problem is, I've NEVER seen a DRM technology that successfully reflects both specifically licensed and fair use activities. Such technology simply doesn't exist, and I doubt that it ever could, short of some magical artificial intelligence emulating copyright lawyers and a judge. Face it: a technological solution isn't going to be able to recognize that the copy I'm making does fall under fair use, and should therefore be allowed. Instead, current DRM technologies, and all future ones I can think of, will block my efforts and therefore deny me my fair use rights. And "fair use" IS a right.
Examples: Years ago, when DVD players were first being introduced, I merely wanted to pipe a video signal through my VCR so I could switch the multiple inputs from DVD to VCR with my remote control, without having to flip the cables around. No dice, thanks to Macrovision protection built into the VCR hardware and DVD content. I wasn't copying the content. It was going to the TV. Of course this is allowed. But nooooo, the signal was continuously corrupted on the off chance I might try to hit "record" someday. Modern examples of the same thing include HDMI, but content owners have been "nice" enough not to enable it, because they know people will be pissed off for the same legitimate reasons as I was. The technology now is no better. Another one recently in the news is the Zune's application of DRM protections to shared files no matter where they came from or who owns the content. Stupid.
Legitimate situations like this mean DRM is defective. Furthermore, even if these particular instances could be fixed, there will always be fundamental limitations. "Fair use" means you can do things that might otherwise be illegal. If I need a short clip of the news to make a parody or for educational purposes the equipment will prohibit my legitimate use.
Yes, DRM isn't "inherently evil", but in all practical applications of it, it is evil, stupid, and wrong. Content owners that implement it are trampling on my rights -- rights which are just as strongly expressed and protected in copyright law as their rights are.
When the issue is complex and subtle, you can't substitute a dumb technological solution (DRM) for good, old fashioned human judgement.
Re:Dead Letter / Jefferson's Taper (Score:5, Interesting)
There are some very ignorant (or possibly just plain malicious) people who have started attacking the liberal viewpoint over the living document position - I say ignorant not because the 'original intent' position is necessarily wrong, but because they have opposed it by making original intent something the court should guess at in a near vacuum. Only certain other documents are supposed to be relevant to helping determine intent, and often judges who refer to other documents, such as the letter you mention, are falsely characterized as liberal activist judges who are not sticking with original intent at all.
So you've given a very good arguement for the user's right to copy being a natural right, and creator copyright for a limited term being a gift of social law. It's actually an old style conservative arguement. At this point, it's not conservative enough for the 'right wing', and half the Fox comentators would call you a liberal. Now for the 64 dollar question. How do we fix the copyright system, if we let someone re-define the centrist position so that it's to the right of practically every poster to this thread.
Re:Missed it. (Score:1, Interesting)
I agree; copyright is good. But in the United States, it's way, WAY too long. I think 50 years from the time it is first put onto a fixed medium (LP records, tapes, published in a book, recorded on film, digital, etc.) is more than enough "limited times" for copyright.
Also, I'd like to see intellectual property have some kind of property tax attached to it. Can you imagine how the RIAA and MPAA will change their tune to say intellectual property isn't the same as real, tangible property if a property tax was proposed for it?
Re:Missed it. (Score:3, Interesting)
What I hate is when you see the grandson's family complaining that "oh, those nasty pirates are stealing our deserved income." What the hell? Since when do you deserve to get rich off something your grandfather created decades (centuries?) ago?
Copyright aside, DRM is inherently evil because it quite obviously has "side-effects" which go far beyond what copyright is supposed to protect. (Bought a new MP3 player? Buy all your music again! Bought a PSP? Buy your movies again on UMD!) Clearly these aren't just random side-effects - DRM was created to make this happen.
Re:If it's property... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Missed it. (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll accept that without specifically endorsing the viewpoint. There were a lot of people even at the beginning of our country's history that didn't like copyright at all. It took... a few decades (someone may correct me if this thread isn't too old) before the United States even recognized foreign copyrights registered in the US. Americans made lots of money printing European books in the US, in violation of copyright. This is fairly normal practice for developing nations, incidentally, you can watch it playing out in China right now. Back then England was saying to us similar things to what we are saying to China about copyright protections now.
Retroactive copyright extensions?
Agreed, these serve no purpose towards the stated goal in the Constitution. I do not like them.
Terms longer than a human lifespan?
Ahh... this one I'm going to take a silly/stupid position, just because I wonder if some people in corporate America really think like this...
Consider things this way:
Original copyright was 14 years, plus an optional 14 year extension, giving a total of 28 years. For someone that produced a copyrighted work in their mid 30s, they could expect that work to stay covered by copyright approximately until they died. Statistically, probably a few years before they died, but not by too much. (Ignoring skew from infant mortality, if you lived to be 20 years old, you had a pretty good chance of living to see 65, in the late 1700s in America.) So 28 years of copyright covered you until you died, for something produced in your prime working years.
That worked great for copyright held by humans.
Now, we have copyrighted works that are, for major money-making stuff, held by corporations, instead of by people. Which rule are we going to change? The number of years, which is obviously an artificial construct, or the basic (implied) theory that copyright should last until around the death of the author.
The government, through careful application of lobbyist dollars, has decided that the proper part to hold on to is "death of the copyright holder" and, since corporations don't die, it is therefore logical that copyrights should go forever.
This is pretty much how it works right now... Every time the first Mickey Mouse movie is in danger of losing copyright protection, the copyright term gets (retroactively) extended, and the work is still/again protected for the life of the copyright holder. Because, really, you aren't changing the rules of the game... you're simply recognizing that the copyright holder is living longer than had originally been expected.
See? Makes perfect sense when looked at like that, doesn't it?
Okay, I'm done with my silly/stupid position, and I can stop feeling slimy. Eww. I need a shower. But it does give you at least a little bit of understanding of a possible defensible position that the corporate copyright holders could have. Ignoring the fact that they are mostly power-mad money-grubbing soul-sucking scum.
I wonder if anyone really does think like that.
Re:So *you*'re the strawman I keep hearing about. (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly.
You know what the problem with a religion is? It's not that the advice it gives is good or bad, it's that the absence of the consideration of why it's good or bad that goes with wholesale acceptance of it leads people to not realize when the world has changed and the good advice is no longer good advice.
As a way to administer who in a population you entice to create, it's not an entirely bad idea. But it has limits on its effectiveness and costs that must be considered, and it must be allowed to become obsolete and die as a cultural meme if we are going to grow and progress.
The time is fast approaching where you could fit the sum of all human creativity into a small cheap piece of material with a reader no more sophisticated than a cheap electronic toy and put one in the hands of every man, woman and child on earth. Copyright law would make this impossible. That's a pretty big cost to pay. Particularly in consideration that copyright isn't what supports those artists, but rather one possible mechanism to determine who we collectively support.
We need to create a practical mechansim that would allow for humanity to support creativity in people in a fair and sustainable fashion that doesn't carry the necessity to deprive humanity of access to the majority of works, as the current system does.
To choose to do otherwise is to needlessly transform (maintain?) our neighbours into (as) ignorant, dependent and uneducated peasants that, rather than participating in mutually beneficial civilized exchange out of enlightened self-interest, instead attack their oppressors in an attempt to break free of a structure that separates them from culture, education and the capacity for more intelligent behavior, again, out of enlightened self-interest.
If he gives you fishes but refuses to teach you to fish and refuses to let you try and teach yourself, the enlightened person will gather their neighbours, stab him spears, pillage his hut for his equipment, then try to muddle it out for themselves and enable everyone in the village to be empowered.
Progress occurs when they finally succeed.