Slashdot Mirror


Cory Doctorow on Digital Rights Management

VerdeRana writes "I just heard the EFF's Cory Doctorow give this fantastic argument critiquing DRM. He makes a great case for why DRM is bad for society, business, and artists, why it simply don't work, and why Microsoft (the audience for this talk) should not invest in it. Broadcast this far and wide, and maybe someone will listen."

30 of 415 comments (clear)

  1. DRM by mirko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem with DRM is that it's got a name that people might consider making it the only right-management-related concept, now, DRM is not alone in its category and there'll be other to take care about, like DVD region locking, etc...

    --
    Trolling using another account since 2005.
    1. Re:DRM by makomk · · Score: 5, Insightful
      DRM is moral because it does not restrict the licensee from any usage to which he has not already agreed through the implicit acceptance of federal copyright law.

      Not neccesarily true. DRM scemes often add extra restrictions beyond those of federal copyright law. For example, they block one or more of the types of copying allowed by fair use, many tie protected files to one computer, etc, etc...

      Besides, If I've legally bought a CD, I don't see any moral reson that I shouldn't copy it to a computer/MP3 player/other more convenient form, for my own use, no matter what the law says or the DRM restrictions are.

    2. Re:DRM by pnuema · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you had read the article, you would realize that though you might be pissed, he doesn't need your permission. This portion of copyright law dates back to the player piano days, where it was ruled that a flat fee is paid to the artist being "covered". You don't need permission to sample music, you just need to pay the fee.

    3. Re:DRM by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      DRM is an industry attempt to enforce a monopoly, just like region locking.
      The fiasco of DVD restrictions runs counter to every single principle of the free-market which these companies supposedly hold dear.
      The reality is that free-market is only supported when it benifits the big guys, and in the case of digital media, it dosen't.

      It's time for people to realise, music and movies are only big business because the few have a monopoly on their, inexpensive, reproduction. Now that Joe Sixpack has the ability to reproduce, they want to take it away from him. It's shameful. The way to deal with piracy is to reduce the cost of your products. That way they'll be so cheap people won't bother pirating. It's only the monopoly that makes them so expensive.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    4. Re:DRM by fulldecent · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can do whatever the hell I want with your CD I bought. REdistributing the mix requires your permission though. DRM changes none of this.

      --

      -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

    5. Re:DRM by harrkev · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And maybe I wrote a murder mystery, and you should only read it in a dark, damp cellar with the smell of moss. And I will sue you if you DARE try reading it at the beach!

      Come on here. If you don't want people listening to/using your work, then DON'T PUBLISH IT!

      I do agree that it is wrong for somebody to make money off of your work. If somebody wants to re-mix your music FOR THEIR OWN USE, then it should be OK. If they want to sell their mix, then you should get a penny or two. However, you should NOT have the right of refusal. The law is there to guarantee that you get paid, not for you to be a primadonna. If something happens that you don't like, tough luck. Life happens, and people's feeling get hurt. The declaration of independence gives you the right to pursue happiness, not the right to get all pissy if things don't go your way.

      I apologize if this appears troll-like.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    6. Re:DRM by mpe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The fiasco of DVD restrictions runs counter to every single principle of the free-market which these companies supposedly hold dear.
      The reality is that free-market is only supported when it benifits the big guys, and in the case of digital media, it dosen't.


      The same way certain large corporations are pro "globalization" when it means they can get the cheapest possible raw materials and labour. But get upset when customers and retailers (some of whom are themselves large corporations) try to choose the cheapest sources of goods.

    7. Re:DRM by FictionPimp · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Art is subjective my friend. Just because you dont see remixes as art does not mean others dont. If someone takes your song and 3 others and remixes it to a new dance tune, its still a new work of art. That said he still owes you for use of your work, but you should not be able to tell him he can't use it.

      As for your software example, if a applicant came into my office with my source code modified to do something else, my first question would be to find out how he got it, then to revise my security practices! Unlike a song, source code is a copywrighted work that you normally dont release to the public unless you are giving it away. Thus this does not make a good argument. If the guy had access to the code legally and if it was a good hack, I would definatly call that high marks.

      In any case, you seem very close minded for an artist. Most artists I know encourage creativity, and understand that just because they dont like something doesn't mean it sucks. Do you tell children they are not allowed to sing your songs because they might be out of tune? You have a right to make money from your work, and as long as you are getting paid, I dont feel you have a right to say what the public does with your work.

      But thats just me. Everyone has their own opinon :-)

    8. Re:DRM by Sax+Maniac · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Damn right.

      As a musician who has written some tunes here and there, it should be exactly that. Someone can take my music, and do whatever what they want with it for private use. If they want to sell it, then they should be required to give me a cut if I am so interested, over some nontrivial threshold. But I should not be able to say "you can't build on my work, even if you don't plan on selling it."

      It really makes me mad that whoever who rewrote Gone With The Wind from the servant's perspective can't. Part of me believes if you're lucky enough to have your bit of art enter the culture, that doesn't mean you and your estate owns the idea forever. Imagine if someone had to pay to write a story about Santa Claus. As far as I can tell, the only different is good ol' Santa came around before these laws came about.

      Sadly many people, including many fellow musicians that I know, think the stuff they write or perform is an absolute property right.

      Those almost people fail to see that they have built their purportedly "original" work on others. Maybe not as obvious and direct as a sample, but all artists have influences. And what's the difference really, between a sample of a chord, and that same chord recorded by the same instruments by myself? Very little, except you have to go through hoops for the former. And as time goes on, and people bitch in court, suddently it won't be legal anymore, and you'll have to find something else. Then nobody will be able to create any art without someone else's permission.

      --
      I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
    9. Re:DRM by shotfeel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Along those same lines..

      I can go to an art gallery, buy two paintings and take them home. I can then cut up one of them to paste parts on another painting, therebye creating something completely different, and hang it on my living room wall.

      I can go the the bookstore and buy a book. I take it home, cross off some of the parts I don't like and write stuff in wherever I want.

      When its time to move, I have a garage sale and put both up for sale.

      AFAIK, I've broken no laws. If any of the artists involved are offended by my compromising their artistic vision, that's their problem.

      So why do some people seem to think that music or movies deserve any more protection than paintings or books?

      Well funded lobbying groups is the only thing that pops into mind.

  2. You can't blame them for trying by Kombat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Companies dealing in intellectual property have never before faced this level of onslaught of piracy and infringement. This isn't something that happened overnight - it's been building up for years (although in recent years, it has accelerated greatly). While a lot of people criticise the methods they're employing to try and protect their assets, few can offer insightful solutions that have solid financial reasoning behind them. We all just seem to assume that if you offered your property for $1/track, that piracy would vanish. Well, they took us up on that challenge, and piracy hasn't vanished.

    These people/companies are getting desperate. Sure, I don't think DRM is a silver bullet either, but it is at least slowing the problem until they can figure out a better, long-term solution.

    The real thing we should be worrying about in all this is the laws they're passing in the meantime, like the DMCA. While the companies themselves will evolve through this, the rights-stripping provisions enshrined in legislation will be much, much harder to phase out. Laws are rarely repealed, and THAT is what should concern us.

    --
    Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
    1. Re:You can't blame them for trying by bhmit1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We all just seem to assume that if you offered your property for $1/track, that piracy would vanish. Well, they took us up on that challenge, and piracy hasn't vanished. Actually, if I could find the bands I enjoy for $1/track as an mp3, then sure, I'd pay it, even if there was an inaudible watermark in the file. But $1/track for some DRM'd file that I can't play on any device I own isn't going to change anything.

    2. Re:You can't blame them for trying by Gigs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped ,or turned back, for their private benefit."
      - Heinlein's Lifeline

      Your argument is flawed! They have continually faced these types of onslaughts. From monks handwriting manuscripts to the printing press, to the copy machine. Live performance to wax phonographs to LP's to tapes and now digital. With each change in technology the cost of production changed just as dramatically then as it has now. Since the cost of production has fallen to the level that is very near free you can not justify a cost to the consumer that is way way above free. And the fact that you business will go under doesn't matter one little bit. If the RIAA and all of its studios went out of business today there would still be lots of music to listen to tomorrow.

    3. Re:You can't blame them for trying by psychofox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Companies dealing in intellectual property have never before faced this level of onslaught of piracy and infringement.

      You obviously haven't read the article. It is littered with examples of how companies have in fact dealt with "piracy" and "infringement" many times before in the past. Going back over a hundred years in fact.

    4. Re:You can't blame them for trying by wkitchen · · Score: 5, Insightful
      We all just seem to assume that if you offered your property for $1/track, that piracy would vanish. Well, they took us up on that challenge, and piracy hasn't vanished.
      No, they didn't. What they're offering for $1/track is a product grossly inferior to what we were getting for a similar price on old-fashioned CD's (before they started screwing those up with copy protection). How can there be any hope of a new product catching on when it's significantly worse than what people are already accustomed to?

      There are lots of songs I'd happily pay a buck for if it had the same quality and versatility as what I'm used to from CD's. And that means lossless compression and no DRM. And I'd happily buy songs with a lossy compression but at a good bitrate and with no DRM for .50/track. But the DRM infested garbage they're selling now? That's worth exactly 0$ to me.
    5. Re:You can't blame them for trying by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I don't think DRM is a silver bullet either, but it is at least slowing the problem until they can figure out a better, long-term solution."

      It's not 'slowing the problem', and quite possibly it's making the problem _worse_. Today, if I want some music I can buy a DRM-crapped CD and have to fight to play it on my PC, or I can just download the songs for free from the web. If I want to play a game, I can buy it with some braindead 'copy protection' that will probably screw up my system by installing stupid fake drivers, or I can download a cracked copy from the web.

      If free distribution of your products is a problem, you don't solve it by making your products more of a hassle for your paying customers to use, and treating those customers like criminals.

    6. Re:You can't blame them for trying by idiot900 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The reality is that the techie community has never offered anything beyond "You're rich and I hate you and computers should be outside the law and anyway I'm helping the artists by not paying them."

      That's part of it, but the larger issue that riles tech types is that protection of copyrights on music and movies is only a small part of what the entertainment industry's new laws affect. The fundamental issue here is that these laws limit the dissemination of information in ways that run counter to the values that we believe the United States was built on. For example, the DMCA makes certain math equations illegal to use or even tell people about. You could invalidate large swaths of public domain knowledge by demonstrating that such knowledge pertains specifically to breaking your stupid protection scheme.

      In a nutshell: techies hold the pursuit and dissemination of knowledge in all its forms dear to their hearts - after all, computers were designed for those very purposes. DRM stabs at the core of this ideal by limiting said pursuit and dissemination.

      The MPAA and RIAA, slimy and evil as they are, deserve to not have their content pirated. But they are trying to do this by legislating away the idea of a free knowledge-based society, and that is where I have a big problem.

      (I apologize for any factual errors and welcome corrections.)

  3. Nothing new here... by skyryder12 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, it seems to be a re-hash of eveything we have known that is evil about DRM for the last few years, just all prettied up and in the same place. I despair that these arguments have much worth, particularly when you are talking to a corporate entity that has twice been convicted of monopolistic practices. It seems naive to me to even expect to be able to make such a difference. Since I live in the U$A, I know, no matter what the rhetoric, that it all comes down to money in the end. They will take a buck from anyone and anywhere that they can, and of course genetically they subliminally support the monopolistic practices of others. Computing literacy will be the next dividing line between rich and poor......

  4. Re:Why DRM will work by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, DRM will stop 14 year old girls from sharing CD collections with their friends so they will all get copies from Kazaa, instead of one person in the group buying each one and then sharing with their friends. I've had problems in the past where copy protection has prevented me from exercising my rights to a product (even installing a piece of software I've bought, because I took the disk with me when I and my laptop left the house, but didn't pick up the manual which had the CD key on the back). My response? To bypass the copy protection. This often wastes a lot of my time, and in the future I avoid products from manufacturers who have wasted my time in the past.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  5. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG by wurp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The government states that it is illegal to copy copyrighted materials for other than some particular purposes. The copyright owner has absolutely no right to stop you from doing anything at all other than the rights anyone has.

  6. Counterpoint to "1. That DRM systems don't work" by mukund · · Score: 3, Insightful
    DRM systems are broken in minutes, sometimes days. Rarely, months. It's not because the people who think them up are stupid. It's not because the people who break them are smart. It's not because there's a flaw in the algorithms. At the end of the day, all DRM systems share a common vulnerability: they provide their attackers with ciphertext, the cipher and the key. At this point, the secret isn't a secret anymore.

    I am going to state a counterpoint purely from a technical stance (my stance on DRM is not pro- or anti- as I still have a lot to learn). It is possible for the key to remain a secret, even if it is in the hands of the consumer. Right now apps such as iTunes have it in software. You can generate keypairs and store keys in a medium analogous to that used in smart-cards, in the player hardware such that if it is ever tampered with to get the key, the key itself is destroyed. The hardware would probably be the sound-card or the speaker system if it is digital where the decoding of the compressed audio would take place. Yes this is not available now, but there's a good chance of such systems coming into operation.

    Also like somebody in the MPEG committee recently said, the job of such DRM systems is not to put off the super clever guy who can break the system anyway... most systems are breakable. The plan is to put off the average consumer who may drag himself/herself into investigating the use of copyrighted content illegally if software and tools are available to *easily* circumvent such content-distrbution-restriction systems.

    Right now, to crack iTunes songs using a software program is super-easy because of easy availability of easily-usable software. Hardware systems will likely be much harder to crack if implemented properly (every tried cracking an iButton?). The key-pair can be generated by the hardware in question and can be used only by that hardware and the user will have no access to the private key. Tampering with the hardware will destroy the key.

    Unlike cracking the firmware (example: DVD firmware is 'patched' before update to play multi-region DVDs) the device may require the firmeware to be cryptographically signed by the vendor before it accepts it, hence voiding the ability to tamper with it.

    Of course, we have a long way to go before such hardware is designed and adopted.

    --
    Banu
  7. Same by cubicledrone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Articles like this one follow a familiar pattern:

    1) The history of copyright, complete with exhaustive descriptions of the piano roll and the Monarchy.

    2) A sob story about some poor honest member of the global audience who can't watch the latest Hollywood crap-fest because they don't have eight copies of it arranged so they are never more than 10 yards from at least two of them.

    3) Ringing, strident statements about how Anything can be copied(tm) do you hear me??!?! WELL, DO YOU??!?!?!?!?!!?!

    4) The argument then swerves into the ever-popular "in the future, the Internet will make copyright obsolete and artists will all live in a Utopian paradise where everything is free, free, free like the book they spent 4,000 hours writing which is at this very minute available on 4,000 warezzzzzzz sites for your convenience"

    5) This is usually followed by the standard "books are worthless, music is pointless, art is disposable, inspiration is a commodity" argument which offers the idea that because something can be cheaply copied, it has somehow become worthless.

    Throughout each of these discussions, there is always support for "well, we'll just copy it anyway" which is why this argument has long since lost even the remotest shred of credibility.

    There is only one question that needs to be answered. Is there any set of conditions under which the "copy every last fucking bit on Earth" people will just pay for the fucking movie/book/CD/whatever?

    --
    Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
    1. Re:Same by hyphz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > Is there any set of conditions under which
      > the "copy every last fucking bit on Earth"
      > people will just pay for the fucking
      > movie/book/CD/whatever?

      Yes, the case where they respect the authors.

      Think about it. Most people don't steal stuff. Also, they don't copy stuff done by bands or people they have a personal connection to.

      The problem is that the whole industry is now geared towards giving customers a totally skewed perception. They are left with the opinion that a) creative artists have something unique called "talent", b) that this makes all of their work of creating art become easy, c) that they are special, distinct and superior from everyone else, d) that they never have to work hard, etc..

      You see that everywhere. Pop Idol, tour shows, glamour shoots, synapse sequences that don't show any work being done, "fun on the set" outtake tapes.. and it's all rubbish. Talent isn't proven to exist, and even if it is, there's no way of knowing in finite time that any person doesn't have it. Even talented people work hard to create art. Artists are pretty much like everyone else, and have problems of their own.

      But instead the industry is persisting in holding onto the glamour that they're super special stars. And then they're shocked when people's response is, "since they're super special, why apply conventional morality to them? Why worry about ripping off their work - they never had to work hard anyway?"

      And when laws get passed, they're shocked when people think "Well, those laws don't apply to US..." After all, you've taught them for the last 10 years that all the opportunities and rewards and advancement methods and skills that apply to creative artists don't apply to Joe Soap, so why should Joe Soap rush to embrace the negative side too?

      No. Enough. Start showing the truth. Nobody does anything in one take. Every piece of art has had huge amounts of pencil eraser pressure. Like your teacher used to say: show your working, it proves you're not cheating. And when your customers know you're not cheating, they won't cheat you back.

  8. He missed the point by NigelJohnstone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Microsoft wants a single encryption key as the secret.

    It wants that key protected inside the CPU.

    It wants OEM's to pre-register the computer with Microsoft and the key exchange will be done at that time to avoid man in the middle attacks.

    Your PC will have an encrypted channel, done via private key encryption between your CPU and Microsoft.

    So now all DRM keys for all encryption flow down this channel, direct into the CPU's store.

    You DON'T give the attacker the key in this instance, you give the COMPUTER the key. The COMPUTER works against the customer to protect the copyright holders wishes.

    It's still a breakable scheme , but the EFF guy didn't give them full credit for the scope of the scheme. Palladium & DRM are ONE AND THE SAME strategy.

    Without MS you can't send your DRM key securely, so any DRM seller has to be pay MS even if it doesn't use MS's DRM.

    I wonder though if governments will stand idly by and let Microsoft create a private encryption channel between everyone's computer and Microsoft.
    I strongly doubt it.

  9. Formats by fulldecent · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Remember this and remmeber it well:

    CD's aren't going out of style anytime soon

    Vinyl isn't going out of style any time soon.

    Customers have choices. And that isn't going out of style anytime soon

    --

    -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

  10. Re:Persuit of DRM policy by SquareOfS · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, I think what Cory was trying to convince them of is that they're being suckered into defending a business model they're not invested in -- namely, the Hollywood/RIAA model. (And, as a side note, that given the option between defending a dying business model and developing a new one, the new one is almost always the better bet.)

    His point is that Microsoft, like Sony with VCR, has no incentive to make a less capable tool.

    DRM should be seen, from Microsoft's perspective, as a Linux/free software incentive program: if you build deliberately crippled tooks, you give your users reason to walk away from them.

    And Microsoft has (or should have) far more interest in retaining the userbase than it does in
    receiving micropayments every time somebody plays a song on a DRM'd system.

    It also bears pointing out, of course, that there is a version of events in which DRM is a winner for Microsoft -- it's the version where we posit strict legal enforcement of restrictions on the right to create new digital technology and innovation is never allowed to outstrip DRM. Setting aside for the moment the moral arguments against that, Cory points out that history suggests that betting on the 1984 vision of DRM and computers is pretty long odds.

  11. You didn't read the article, did you? by rfc1394 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How many people want to make a copy of anything?

    A lot of us would like to protect material from damage or destruction, or would prefer not to keep subjecting our originals to constant exposure to use. (This was more of an issue with tape because of friction.) Or maybe I don't want to have to buy two copies of the same disk or tape because I don't want to have to keep a copy upstairs and a copy downstairs in order to watch it. I can afford to buy duplicate 50c-$1 used books; buying, say, 500 duplicate DVDs at 15-30 bucks a pop is out of the question. My sister has a DVD player in her room that holds 300 discs. It also has a system to allow you to type in the names of every disc. You can use the remote (if you're masochistic or a lunatic) or you can (much closer to sanity) plug in a keyboard. But if you remove a disc from the machine, you lose the stored data. (If you take it out and put it back without doing anything else, you're okay, but once you watch any other disc it will lose the stored info. I can't watch any of the disks from her machine without losing the stored disc info unless she does not use the machine at all for anything. Would be simpler for me to make a copy and watch the copy upstairs than to go downstairs, remove the disc, watch it up there, take it back downstairs, then re-enter the stored data for that disc when she's not using her machine. If I was using DVD-RW, I could simply copy the disc, make a copy, watch it, then erase the copy and use the DVD-RW for watching a temporary copy of a different disc. But I can't do that because of anti-copying protections.

    One time I was copying the master CD of an application we make and by accident I dropped it, which scratched it so badly it would no longer work. And I'm careful.

    There are lots of legitimate reasons for making copies of things, none of which has anything to do with piracy.

    To protect your Toy Story Disc from damage by children, you put it in a a safe place, and make them ask you for it before they watch it.

    I've never been a parent but I have the suspicion you've never been either. Do you really expect to keep kids out of any place you can think of to hide things? And it doesn't matter even if you do make them ask; kids can damage things unintentionally in unbelievable ways. And not just kids, either. My sister has a friend whose child comes by to visit. I have to remind this little girl on a constant basis not to slam the door on the car I'm driving. (I have also had to remind my brother, who is over 50 and older than me, not to do the same thing, so it isn't just kids that have problems (he's broken the side mirror on two of the cars I've owned)). This little lady did something to the Windows Me computer we have that completely destroyed the ability for it to boot-up normally; windows kept saying there was a protection error and would not boot. Would come up in safe mode but not otherwise. Reinstall from the CD would not fix the problem. I ended up having to wipe the hard drive and reinstall on bare metal. I'll tell you this: I have been doing programming for over 20 years and I'll be damned if I can figure out how she did it. I'd even be willing to redo the reinstallation of everything if I could see and find out how she did it.

    People keep bringing up the case of Jon Johansen, and Dmitri Skryalov. They neglect to mention that both of them were found totally innocent,

    After spending time in jail and thousands of dollars in legal fees to have to prove they were innocent.

    and in the makers of the garage door openers lost their case.

    After spending thousands of dollars in legal fees to prove their actions were non-infringing.

    Okay, so the law is badly worded to allow these actions in the first place, but we now have soem case law that explicitely spells out the exceptions.

    --
    The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
  12. Raiders of the Lost Art by Knight2K · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Last weekend I went to the Fanzilla Fan Film Convention to see the absolutely brilliant Raiders of the Lost Ark: The Adaptation. For anyone who doesn't know, this movie was the work of three junior high kids back in the 1980's, that were so moved by seeing the actual film, that they decided to remake it shot-for-shot.

    At the screening, they informed us that security guards would be monitoring the audience to make sure none of us were taping the film to distribute it across the net, since it is a reproduction of the original film. As I was watching the grainy film of a 13 year old adventurer mock fighting 13 year olds wearing turbins in the streets of Gulfport, MS, a security guard walked up the aisle scanning with a night vision scope to make sure nobody had any naughty cameras.

    The whole situation just seemed so ludicrous. Nobody was going to mistake this film for the actual Raiders. The point of watching this film was not to be entertained by the movie's plot (though it does hold up well in the re-telling), but in seeing how these kids with limited resources managed to pull off outrageous stunts and ingeniuously improvise set pieces to make a film that actually held together.

    They succeeded bigger and better than you would think. But Industrial Light and Magic doesn't have to worry about their jobs. I still bought the Indiana Jones Trilogy DVD set. In fact, I watched the real Raiders that night when I got home because the kids did such a good job that I felt like seeing the original.

    That fan film may not be creative in the sense of creating a new work from whole cloth. But it was extremely creative in execution, and inspired a few of the kids involved to become a part of the movie business. Ironically, one of them works for a DVD production house.

    I wish more people could see this film; it is truly inspirational. I felt like running out and making my own movie. Why can't it be out there on the 'Net if nobody is going to make money from it? Would it really cut into LucasFilm's profits if someone did make some money on it?

    One of the producers of the film introduced it at the festival and said that they occasionally show it for educational purposes. What kind of message does it send to show kids this film, and then tell them that there are these bizarre boundaries on their creativity? Do they send security to those screenings? I've heard a lot of complaints on this site and others that kids don't do these kinds of ambitious projects anymore. Why do you think that is?

    --
    ======
    In X-Windows the client serves YOU!
  13. DRM Observations by glenstar · · Score: 4, Insightful
    DRM is a ridiculous response to a ridiculous problem. The problem being, how do you protect a copyrighted work from flowing freely amongst Internet users? And, before you say that music/data/software/etc... wants to be free, understand that under current copyright law, copyright holders must make a "reasonable effort" to protect their copyrights to receive protection. Is it a reasonable attempt at protection to put out a product that anyone can copy and distribute freely? No. Is it fair to the consumer to severely limit their use of the copyrighted material after purchase? No. Hence, we have a bit of a conundrum.

    What iTunes, et al, do with DRM is actually very lenient in light of what the 5 majors want (and are actively seeking). They have appeased the RIAA and brethren by perpetuating the illusion that digital material can be fully protected. In reality, all that these DRM schemes have done is place a bump in the road... and a pretty insignificant bump at that. However, that is the price that they (as retailer) must pay to allow major label content to you (the consumer).

    There is a bit of a solution though. Companies like mine, AudioLunchbox, Magnatune, and a few others, are skirting the entire DRM issue by offering indie and quasi-major label material (eg, a compilation put out by an indie that contains tracks by major label artists).

    As time goes on, I sincerely believe that DRM will become *less* of an issue, as the majors begin to realize that while they need to aggressively protect their copyrights, they also need to make sales to the consumer. In the interim, please support those of us who are working to bring you quality music unfettered by DRM.

  14. My only complaint ... by Catiline · · Score: 4, Insightful
    My prime -- and perhaps only -- complaint with Destructive Rights Manglement is that the media companies want to use it as a catch-all regieme, not for the few places where it would be most effective.

    The music and movie studios rant and rave about how piracy is their target with this whole DRM push. Fine -- DRM the movie reels, the review disks, the portions of the chain that are never held by a paying customer, the portions that have in fact have been repeatedly shown to be the source for piracy, and drop those restrictions at the end of the supply chain.

    DRM your business lines boys, not the end product. That way we know you're fighting the pirates -- after all, if you only DRM the end product, somebody might get the mistaken idea you're fighting the customer!