Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Commerce Dep't to Hold Public Workshop on DRM

Posted by timothy on from the digital-rights-bottleneck dept.

ttyp writes: "The United States Department of Commerce Technology Administration (TA) announced a public workshop on digital entertainment and rights management. They're taking public comments here according to the announcement, but they sure have hidden it well. Can anybody find the form? The deadline is July 11!!"

3 of 139 comments (clear)

  1. That's the big issue, isn't it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Protecting the artist's interest.

    In a perfect world, we'd just send artists money directly. All sorts. Musicians, authors, actors, CowboyNeal.. Remember, DRM isn't just about the music industry, though they'll be the biggest proponent behind it. I don't think the publishing and movie industry are that worried about being 'hard hit' by piracy, at least not like the RIAA. Publishers have had to deal with libraries, and box offices have had to deal with Blockbuster.

    But they'll be looking into DRM as more authors are willing to risk the snickers of their collegues and start to publish online, and *if* broad pipes ever become a reality to home users, Dreamworks and friends will start looking at distribution of movies over the 'net.

    Now, back to artists. Bands get squat from cd sales, and unless they're top 40, they don't even get much advertising from the bloodthirsty corps. Authors? As any good author can tell you, unless you're a marketing gimmick, or have been around for years, you'd best have a day job. Movies, well, there's one thing they've got going for them - a home theatre will never equal a *real* theatre. :) But even there, though most movie stars get a good deal in terms of pay, unless you're one of the 'top celebs', you probably aren't getting paid enough.

    Sucks, doesn't it? But think about this: With DRM, we ensure artists get *something*, even if it is a nickel. Without it, there's a much better chance they'll get screwed totally. One can argue that a person who steals (Not pirate. I don't see anyone with eyepatches, damnit!), wouldn't pay for such content anyway, but I'll not argue that anyway.

    Why? Because, DRM is coming. We can fight gloriously and lose, or we can cut our losses and give them input on how it should work. Don't let the bloody warcries on the death of the RIAA/MPAA/etc. dissuade you from tossing these guys some input. It could very well make life much more bearable until we do finally get rid of them. ;)

  2. Here's The Comment I Just Sent by mikeplokta · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My criterion for an acceptable DRM system is simple. It must be incapable of removing any rights from the end user. Where any form of copying or other use is legally permissible without the consent of the copyright holder, such as redistributing extracts as part of a criticism or comment, making a copy for personal use on a different device, copying a broadcast for later viewing ("time-shifting"), viewing a work on a player in a different part of the world and so on, the copyright holder must be incapable of using the DRM system to prevent such copying.

    If a technical solution to preserving "fair use" is not possible, a legal solution would be acceptable -- legislation would have to require that a copyright holder not use a DRM system in such a way as to prevent fair use, and I suggest that the appropriate penalty for failure to comply would be for them to lose the copyright on the work concerned and have it placed in the public domain for all to copy and resell freely.

    You will note that several existing DRM technologies, such as DVD region coding and Macrovision, fail to meet this criterion. This is a serious issue which I suggest you should address at the workshop.

  3. Re:The General Public vs Stakeholders by agentZ · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I live in the Washington DC area and am a computer crime investigator with one of the federal agencies based here. I also care a lot about this issue and will be attending this meeting. Given my credientials, I should be able to get in without being labeled as "one of those long-haired Linux freaks." (i.e. They might listen to me. Yes, sad as it is, law makers don't speak geek and don't believe anybody who isn't from "their" system.)

    If I get the chance to speak at the meeting, I'm debating what I should say:
    • As a federal agent, enforcing the laws on DRM would be impossibly hard. The bad guys are just going to break whatever system you put out there.
    • As a law abiding, but busy guy, I like the convenience of downloading music on-line and putting it on my iPod when I go jogging (to stay in shape and help defend America from terrorists. Okay, that last part is implied, but it would curry favor with the types on this kind of panel.)
    • Forcing everyone to use DRM will stifle innovation as it limits the uses of the music. JXL would never have been able to get an editable copy of Elvis Presley's "Little Less Conversation" to remix into the new cool tune he put out. (Yes, I know JXL went through all of the licensing hoops, but IMHO it's a good example of something that would be denied to ordinary people if DRM is universal.)
    Does anybody else have any other ideas? I'm open to suggestions.