FTC Warns Against Deceptive DRM 159
Jane Q. Public writes "At the Federal Trade Commission's Seattle conference on DRM, FTC Director Mary Engle started off by referencing the Sony rootkit debacle, and said that companies are going to have to get serious about disclosing DRM that may affect the usability of products. She also said that disclosure via the fine print in a EULA is not good enough, and 'If your advertising giveth and your EULA taketh away, don't be surprised if the FTC comes calling.' Transcripts and webcasts are available from the FTC website." Update 18:13 GMT by SM: as Jane Q. Public was nice enough to diplomatically point out, the webcasts are no longer functioning, but transcripts are still available.
Isn't all DRM Deceptive? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Isn't all DRM Deceptive? (Score:4, Insightful)
Doesn't seem too deceptive to me, pretty descriptive actually.
Be 0wnz0r3d by DVD (Score:5, Insightful)
'If your advertising giveth and your EULA taketh away, don't be surprised if the FTC comes calling.'
Does this include, "Own it on DVD"?
Re:Isn't all DRM Deceptive? (Score:3, Insightful)
Digital Rights Mauling
as in the DRM software mauls your digital rights.
Well, well. (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, I would argue, it already has. Let's be real clear here: what Sony, for instance, did with their rootkit was a crime. If I had done it, I'd probably still be sharing a cell with Bubba. Because it was done by a corporation, under a layer of legalistic obfuscation, to "consumers" it was treated as a fairly minor civil matter. Sony handed over some money, offered to replace a few CDs, and mumbled something about being sorry if anybody was offended. Pathetic.
Re:SLASHDOT IS BROKEN (Score:2, Insightful)
FTC Comes a Callin' (Score:5, Insightful)
don't be surprised if the FTC comes calling.
Sony: "Hello?"
FTC: "Hi, this is the FTC, you have some deceptive DRM in your latest product"
Sony: "Oh?"
FTC: "Yeah, so we're just calling to let you know"
Sony: "I'm not surprised that you're calling"
FTC: "Wonderful. Have a good day, sir. Goodbye."
Re:Does this have anything to do with... (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod parent up.
Awhile back I was trying to explain to a stickler-for-the-rules nothing-to-hide trust-the-system colleague why dvd regions were stupid. He didn't see the problem. Until he brought back some DVDs from overseas.
If our heads of state and legislators actually experienced DRM for themselves, DRMs days would probably be numbered.
about. darn. time. (Score:5, Insightful)
they should require a prominent logo of a broken CD if DRM is in use.
Re:Well, well. (Score:5, Insightful)
Punishing corporations (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem appears to be that corporations being imaginary beings and not physical are rather hard to put in a jail.
Put the highest level manager who cannot produce written proof this was ordered by somebody higher up the chain in jail. Next time, the CYA chain will go all the way to the CEO.
Re:Isn't all DRM Deceptive? (Score:1, Insightful)
First you have to define DRM. Stardock claims they don't have DRM, but I dare you to try to copy the game to another computer without activating it or installing it again (or re-installing a new version of Windows with a new key.)
Even though the game runs (as proven by hackers) it will not "legally" run because of their protection mechanism that happens to be digital.
Sounds great! (Score:5, Insightful)
So when are they going to kick the arse of all the movie studios?
They advertise "OWN IT TODAY" on all their dvd releases. Yet they claim in courts and elsewhere that you dont own anything but are merely licensing it.
I want them forced to advertise "Get your limited, conditional and revokeable without warning license to view it today!"
Re:Well, well. (Score:5, Insightful)
What needs to happen is that the chief officer of a company or the chair of the board needs to be the one that is physically accountable should the corporation be convicted of a crime. "I didn't know" or "they didn't tell me" won't be excuses for lack of oversight or management involvement.
I can guarantee you that should highly placed corporate officers be held personally accountable for criminal actions of the corporation they WILL get involved enough to ensure it doesn't happen.
Region locking (Score:5, Insightful)
the only difference is, is that it doesn't affects as many people since not too many import videos or go overseas
Region-locking affects millions of people every day, because it is a barrier to open competition in the markets and allows charging different rates for the same product via artificial means. Perhaps those in the US may be less aware of this because they tend to get things first/cheapest, but don't tell anyone from, say, Europe or Australia that.
Now, I'm not saying a company shouldn't be free to sell a product in one country at one price and in another country at another price. Sometimes, this may be justified, for example if the costs of manufacture/transportation are different in the two cases.
However, blocking someone who is willing to buy where the price is lower and deal with any extra logistics themselves has no ethical or legitimate commercial basis. It doesn't even have an economic argument like copyright, unless you believe in protectionism. So why should the law say that anyone who circumvents such provisions is wrong?
Re:Region locking (Score:3, Insightful)
I call BS. There are many items (and media items) available without region locking and different pricing in different regions - and surprisingly this is working.
Now, region locks have been invented to bring the movie in one region (US) to cinema, but follow the other regions only 6 months after. What, if those people could get the DVD before the official cinema release? So, in order to support their broken business model, the studios required region codes.
BTW: I don't own DVDs for exactly those region codes. I know that breaking them is trivial. But why the heck can I only use a tool (DVD player) after hacking it? And then there are those great countries that made it even illegal (that's actually the real joke here).
Re:FTC Comes a Callin' (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Isn't all DRM Deceptive? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course DRM is deceptive since it's impossible to design "good" DRM. This is the four factor test for fair use:
DRM does not know the character of use, because you can copy the whole by parts it does not know how much you'll use and finally it has no way of determining the market impact of your use. It's not in any way possible to make DRM that could support fair use. So you can err on the side of the consumer or the copyright holder, and erring on the side of the consumer was the old way - no DRM, but if you did something that was not fair use they could take you to court. The other is to err on the side of the copyright holder, disallowing any use that might be used for nefarious purposes. That means blocking you from doing many things that you want and that would be fair, because a machine could never make that determination and even if it could, what you use it for can only be determined after the fact. Designing "good" DRM is therefore a theoretical impossibility.
Re:Punishing corporations (Score:1, Insightful)
The problem isn't just that Corporations are non physical beings. It is the dual complication of Corporations having the same legal rights as physical beings or citizens, while enjoying the benefits of limited liability sheltering those who make decisions from taking responsibility for those decisions.
If I poison a well causing death to people, if I am caught, I get criminally prosecuted, and jailed if found guilty. A corporation, poisoning wells ( many documented instances ), is sued and fined, perhaps (in their eyes) maliciously, but no-one is held accountable, or criminally prosecuted.
Moral of the story - using a corporation to abuse, or create an environment that will kill actual humans is a civil offence, that if conducted by a private individual would constitute Domestic Terrorism.
Solution: revoke the corporations right as a human being and citizen, and reintroduce liability for corporate behaviour.
And for those who will whine about it being bad for the economy, try thinking of peoples lives for once instead of simply your portfolio.
Re:Well, well. (Score:3, Insightful)
So you are saying if I put code in my next software release that opens up a hole into your computer for me, the CEO should go to jail?
That doesn't seem right.
The level of involvement they would need would stifle all production.
Re:Isn't all DRM Deceptive? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fair Use Circumvention Kit?
Acronym's so much better.
"I got FUCKed when Microsoft shut down their FUCK servers."
Re:Isn't all DRM Deceptive? (Score:4, Insightful)
1: DRM has nothing to do with Rights. It can enforce restrictions that are, or are not covered by copyright equally well.
2: The software is being used(run) by customers, not publishers. Therefore, the software is restricting it's user.
Re:Region locking (Score:3, Insightful)
The ability of people worldwide to communicate over the Internet is making this model even more broken...
If they release a movie 6 months earlier in one region than another and it's lousy, the word soon spreads.
Re:Region locking (Score:2, Insightful)
Because you know what'll happen? Your 'official' distributor will get his lunch eaten by a mob of opportunists who buy the product next door in mass quanities and then sell it in his area.
And they'll be selling it not for 1/2 $X but $X minus a couple of cents, since they know the folk in his area are willing to pay more.
So? Why should corporations be the only ones to get the benefits of globalization? If they want cheap labor, I want cheap goods.
Re:Does this have anything to do with... (Score:1, Insightful)
Now you're just being silly.
Since DRM has no actual definition..
DRM is Digital Restriction Management, or if you drank the koolaid, Digital Rights Management.
Regional encoding is a form of DRM, the bullshit Lexmark pulled with chipped cartridges is a form of DRM, HDCP is a form of DRM, any technology which uses software to implement an additional layer of restriction above the hardware layer is a form of DRM.
And under the broad strokes people are using to paint region locking as DRM, SNES cartridges would be considered DRM because you can't play the game enclosed in them using your Atari 2600 or Sega.
No. That is hardware compatibility. Checking whether an inserted cartridge is an official cartridge is DRM.
Re:Be 0wnz0r3d by DVD (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Isn't all DRM Deceptive? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well in fact the use of it is a complete lie. DRM attempts post sale theft from the consumer. Any attempt of DRM that is used has to be made clear at the point of purchase. Any attempt by any DRM device that attempts to damage or impinge upon the use of devices owned by the consumer is in fact a criminal act under numerous cyber crime laws, where said actions where carried out with out the consumers fore knowledge "prior' to purchase.
So in reality as it is currently being used DRI is more appropriate, as it is digital rights infringement.
Unless it is clearly stated at the point of purchase, what damage the content I am purchasing will do to devices upon which I install that content, including spinning up of CD-DVD drives - basically unfair wear and tear, forced online registration - theft of internet bandwidth, theft of rights of resale - limited number of installs, installation of undesired software - theft of hard disk storage space, loss of computer performance - unwanted drivers making use of CPU cycles, you are stealing from me.
I assure you whether you steal a little bit from everyone or a lot from just a few people you are still a crook, a pirate stealing what does not belong them, a criminal waiting to be prosecuted for stealing from millions of people. So get your legal facts straight and learn to recognise who the real criminals are for a start it is not the customers who buy you content.