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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Digital Rights Mauling
as in the DRM software mauls your digital rights.
Re:Isn't all DRM Deceptive? (Score:5, Funny)
Digital Rights Mauling
as in the DRM software mauls your digital rights.
Ah, I thought that was when you make an unapproved use of the media and a bear comes and mauls you.
That's about the only way DRM could be worse. On the plus side, that would totally get Colbert on our side of the fight.
Re: (Score:2)
No no, see it's all about who's rights are being managed.
One clue: not yours.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose we'll have to wait at least 4 more years to fix it. But I suspect something worse that will make us long for the good old days of the DMCA will come along that we'll have to roll back.
Re:Isn't all DRM Deceptive? (Score:5, Informative)
Digital Restrictions Management.
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: (Score:2)
Technically "Digital Rights Management" is correct, as it allows the copyright holder the RIGHT to RESTRICT what can or can't be done with the product. It also shows which side of the copyright holder / customer equation it's designed for.
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: (Score:2)
The correct term is Digital Restrictions Management.
Re: (Score:2)
Digital Restrictions Management might be a better fit.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
So again, do I sound like the kind of guy who supports DRM of any kind? You must have misread my post (brief as it was). It was intended to be sarcasm.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. At first I thought that this could be a great step forward. But at it's core, DRM - at least when it ties content to specific hardware or prevents fair use - is deceptive. I don't see the FTC fixing that issue anytime soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Combine DRM with an EULA written by a lawyer trying to skin you for your arm and leg for any conceived wrongdoing and when the EULA also states that you use the application/data on your own risk and no responsibility for hardware or anything else and you are toast.
Mind that most EULA:s aren't worth the paper they are written on.
DRM = Digital Rape Method.
Re: (Score:2)
Agree. But why? It's just so foolish.
Misleading your customers - even by omission - is just bound to be counter-productive in the medium term. Or even - in this age of virtually instant communication - the very short term.
If you can't justify selling your product, with all its features and restrictions, then you've got a serious problem with your business model.
Oh wait...
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.
Does this have anything to do with... (Score:5, Funny)
...when a certain US president accidentally bought some region 1 DVDs for a certain UK prime minister?
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.
Re:Does this have anything to do with... (Score:5, Informative)
The ironic thing here is that while it is also something of an attack on the consumer, region locking is a completely seperate issue from DRM.
Region Locking = You can only use content on devices sold in or for the same region you purchased the content in.
DRM = You can only use content if you agree to give up certain rights you otherwise had and agree to allow the company selling the content to place technological locks in place on your property to ensure your compliance.
Re: (Score:2)
DRM = You can only use content if you agree to give up certain rights you otherwise had and agree to allow the company selling the content to place technological locks in place on your property to ensure your compliance.
No thanks, I am happier with my money in my pocket. So really DRM == NO SALE (at least for me).
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?
Oops (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:Region locking (Score:5, Informative)
The thing about region locking is
A: It's trivial in most cases to get around
B: It actually serves a purpose, just not one that is immediately appearent to the consumer.
In most cases, region locking is used for one and only one purpose, to allow a producer to find a distributor who is willing to sell the product in a specific region. Very few (if any) companies do their own worldwide distribution. Distributors want exclusivity in a region, and they have good reason for this. No one wants to sign a deal to distribute your product for $X if the guy next door is doing it for 1/2 $X because their area is too poor to be willing to pay $X.
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.
Now that's not a defense for region locking as much as the reason why it exists. But frankly I'm alot more tolerant of DVD's that need a region unlocked player than I am of DVD's that require I uninstall programs from my machine and will only install three times before I have to jump through hoops with customer service.
Re: (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 co
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there is the element of time control as well, after all if you can't get your movie in the theaters everywhere till six months after it's premier in the country you 'made it for', then it'd be foolish for you to sell your DVDs in those places the day before the movie actually comes out.
The fact that there exist people out there who are not paranoid does not exclude the existance of those who are. Since region locking is an optional component in most cases, there will be people trusting enough to go wit
Re: (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: (Score:2)
So the producer wants distributors who will sell their dvds in a particular region, surely multiple distributors willing to sell in a particular region is better?
No, it's all about artificially inflating the price... They want to gouge customers for as much as they can.
Re: (Score:2)
The DISTRIBUTOR wants exclusivity. Not the publisher. And yes, it's about maximizing profit, which is not intermittently immoral or unethical.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
One reason for region locking is to protect theater revenues. For example, I remember a situation where one of the Garfield films was available on DVD from dvdpacific.com in America. Yet the same film was not even OUT in the movie theaters in Australia yet (IIRC it opened about that time).
Thats an extreme example but there are others, especially with kids films (which usually have a short time between theater and DVD release and have different theater release dates around the world to best catch the school
Re: (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong, globalization is something that needs to happen.
But it's going to hurt alot of people putting it in place, and there isn't any reason to expect them to simply go "Oh, you want to fuck me over? Well, sure, let's see if I have any Crisco left in the house..." just because you want cheap flicks.
In your world, you expect everyone to price fix their goods at the lowest common denomiator. But you are ignoring the fact even if there were a fixed cost to making the physical product, getting it a
Re: (Score:2)
PS. I know of zero laws anywhere that prevent someone from getting around region locks other than in the cases where you are hit as a byproduct of a real DRM issue and the region lock just got swept in as part of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That, and unlike DRM, there is not even the pretense that a region lock fights copyright infringement thus they aren't protected under the DMCA or it's worldwide clone brothers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And as I stated, DRM != Region Coding, Region Coding != DRM
Re: (Score:2)
"DVD region codes are a DRM scheme. DVD video discs may be encoded with a region code restricting the area of the world in which they can be played." And while you may consider Region Coding to be something other than DRM, in order for you to expect other people to agree with you, you will need to provide some reference that agrees with you.
Region Coding is for the purpose of controlling where you can consume a digital product that you bought based on the des
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia is not a legal resource the fact that people put in their unresearhed opinions in it doesn't mean those opinions are always right. The truth isn't determined by who can pull the most citations out of their ass.
The DMCA prevents circumvention of measures put in place to prevent copyright infringement. Region locking is not a measure put in place to prevent copyright infringment nor is it meant to be.
DVD region locking, however, can be protected by CSS [wikipedia.org], which is protected by the DMCA and therefore i
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Thus it is that most people don't even think about option 2, unle
Re: (Score:2)
Since DRM has no actual definition, much like "Nerd" or "Geek" or any number of other labels which are applied to a general stereotype as viewpoints warrant, I find it hard to swallow that anything "by its definition" is DRM.
Region locking is sufficently dissimilar from any other form of DRM that I don't beleive it to be DRM. Region locking is not, for instance, protected under the DMCA. It is not used to 'prevent unauthorized copying'.
If you went down the list of things that your normal "DRM" does and what
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps we should go buy a particularly popular film on DVD - say, Bolt - but get it in a region that won't work in the States. Then give it out as a gift to Senators.
Could put a little note in there that says, "If there's any problems with getting this DVD to play, please go to [website]" where we'll have info on how regions work and why that new movie won't play for them.
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:Be 0wnz0r3d by DVD (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
The problem appears to be that corporations being imaginary beings and not physical are rather hard to put in a jail.
Re:Well, well. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Gangs are also imaginary beings and somehow we manage to work past that and charge the humans inside them.
Gangs are not legal entities specifically designed to insulate the humans inside them from responsibility for their actions.
Re: (Score:2)
My gang is. We call ourselves the Double Winzer Knot Crew, we've even got tax exempt status though we are a for-profit. Fortunately, the IRS doesn't hear much about our income coming from the 'individuals' we provide the service of getting rid of 'trouble' for.
Re:Well, well. (Score:4, Interesting)
That must be why the drug cartel leaders personally escort the drugs across borders because they don't care about being shielded from the responsibility for their actions.
Of course gangs are specifically designed to insulate those at the top from legal responsibility for their actions. That's why there are drug mules that carry the drugs, a chain of intermediaries that carry orders (assumed to be from their boss, but can't be proven legally) to the people executing them. The whole point of being a higher-up a well-run gang is that the people below you get busted and you escape being charged.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations were invented so that when someone signed as a representative of a corporation, that agreement would survive past the departure of that person at the corporation, and that investors with absolutely no say in day-to-day operations wouldn't be held liable for corporate actions greater than their initial investment. There was no employee shielding initially. That's a new
Re: (Score:2)
That person probably wasn't in the US.
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
So line managers will have to decide between risking their jobs and risking jail time. It sucks for them, but it will reduce the chance of corporations performing crimes.
Re: (Score:2)
You just need to be crafty. report progress via email in the form of friendly FYI's.
Re: (Score:2)
Issue with making every order coming from CEO is - that it will never happen...
Not every order - that will kill corporations, and kill the economy. Just orders that are likely to be illegal.
If my boss tells me to add a few topics to a course, I don't need written orders. I don't expect that to be a crime. But if he tells me to write a DRM module that takes over a computer, I think I should protect myself.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Then those in charge will simply shut down the corporation that got caught and move all the assets to a new shell corporation...
You need a way to take their assets, shut the corporation down and jail those in charge.... They will be a lot more careful when the penalties actually cost more than the profits from continuing illegal activity.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If I had done it, I'd probably still be sharing a cell with Bubba.
"still"?
How is Bubba doing these days, anyway?
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.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Actually, I'm fairly sure that's exactly what being an officer of the company is about, you are legaly responsible for the actions of your company.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people don't know about their actions...
Most of the shareholders are simply greedy and quite happy for the company to do illegal things if it makes profit, crime is highly profitable and in the case of corporations the usual risks that discourage people from committing crimes don't apply.
So long as these corporations are so big and influential with the media, they can ensure that the vast majority have no idea what they're up to. The few that do may well boycott their products, but the revenue lost fro
Make sure to complain to the FTC (Score:4, Informative)
The FTC won't act unless they know about it and if it's affecting a lot of people.
Notice how those small time telemarketers who violate the Do Not Call List never seem to get caught even when you file complaint after complaint with the FTC; whereas, the big corps who do it are caught and paraded around the media?
Re:Make sure to complain to the FTC (Score:5, Informative)
Complaints can be filed online here:
https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/FTC_Wizard.aspx?Lang=en [ftccomplai...istant.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. The FTC DOES care, however they can't act on a single complaint for various reasons not the least of which being they don't have the resources to investigate everything. I've sent them stuff on domain slamming mail and they said they are interested and every report helps. Don't expect them to jump at your word, but they'll add you to the file and when there's sufficient evidence, they'll move on it.
TO READERS (Score:5, Informative)
So if you try to access the webcasts and it doesn't work, please don't blame me. The editors wrote that in.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, somehow, you were able to use the word "editors" without sarcasm dripping from your tongue. Congrats. I haven't been able to do that on this site for many years! :)
(And thanks for the clarification. I was a little puzzled why they would have been pulled. Now that I know they were never actually posted, things make a lot more sense.)
Re: (Score:2)
oh sure they did. Do you have a paper trail~
Please Note (Score:2)
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:FTC Comes a Callin' (Score:5, Funny)
Sony: "I'm not surprised that you're calling"
ITYM Sony: "We'll send someone over right away with a big bag of money and a van full of hookers and blow."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
about. darn. time. (Score:5, Insightful)
they should require a prominent logo of a broken CD if DRM is in use.
Re:about. darn. time. (Score:4, Funny)
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:Sounds great! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
HDCP means that I can't play my legally purchased discs using my legally purchased blu-ray disc drive except at a crummy resolution.
There is a flag that will restrict you from viewing HD over the analog outputs, but as far as I know none of the studios are using it. Do you know of one who is, or are you referring to "HD over component" vs "HD over HDMI" as "crummy resolution"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't display HD on an old VGA monitor anyway, that has nothing to do with HDCP.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you can...
I have a 21" CRT from 1999 which can handle resolutions higher than 1080p over the VGA connector without issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sounds great! (Score:4, Informative)
The flag is called the Image Constraint Token. It is in the standard, but the studios were holding off using it. However, my upscaling DVD changer from Sony(!) refuses to upscale DVDs with CSS except over HDMI with HDCP. Connected only with component video, it only acts as a progressive scan DVD player.
Re: (Score:2)
Who the hell pay
s 30 bucks a disk? There isn't a movie you can't get for 22 bucks or less on Blu-Ray. Barring boxed sets, naturally.
Of course, price is besides the point. I don't care if they are charging a buck, this is a deceptive practice, and the FTC should bring it to an end.
Contact them and let them know.
Re: (Score:2)
I would say this is a huge joke, but at $30 a disc, it isn't funny.
So don't be a facilitator of their greed. Refuse to buy the discs until they relent on the DRM. If enough of us say, "I don't need that, I won't buy that" then the copyright cartels will be forced to listen.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you complained to the FTC, or do you just expected them to know all this stuff using magic elf farts?
I covered it on TeleRead (Score:2)
I covered the FTC meeting for TeleRead.org (though since I'm connected right now through an iPod Touch from a hospital exam room I don't have any way to fetch the link).
I also was credited by name for a question asked at the beginning of the last panel. :)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The guy does have a point though, for the last few months it's been like they're not even testing their modifications before putting them online.
But yeah, submit a bug report, buddy.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure the FTC may be better than the old RTC approach but you don't break backwards compatible APIs every day for no serious reason despite what people do these days.
What does the Resolution Trust Corporation have to do with Linux drivers? (Actually, I would not be surprised to see them come back!)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Parent has it right.
Intentionally fucking over someone's computer makes you a hacker.
Sony should have faced criminal sanctions.
Re: (Score:2)
I used to agree with this argument, made it myself a few times.
But now, I think I've realized that we just need to stop being idiots and buying the crap.
DRM is no longer an issue for me, I just don't buy movies or other drm infested products anymore. The only change I've noticed is now I have to wait for a movie to play on tv and watch the cut down version of it, or I don't get to play the newest game to which I find out a week later sucked ass anyway so I really just ended up saving myself some time.