Slashdot Mirror
EFF Releases Music DRM Guide
Chris Chiasson writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) recently created a plain English guide to several fair use restrictions that major online music services, such as Apple's iTunes, force on their customers via Digital Rights Management (DRM) laden music files and End User License Agreements (EULAs). An excerpt from the guide follows:
'Forget about breaking the DRM to make traditional uses like CD burning and so forth. Breaking the DRM or distributing the tools to break DRM may expose you to liability under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) even if you're not making any illegal uses.'
The EFF also lists four alternative music services which sell unrestricted files."
Ok, so I've had it with the musicians who have sold their souls to the corporations. With the advert of the Internet, they don't need anyone else to publish and distribute their music to the world. So now I want to get my music from independent artists. The problem is: I know what kind of music I like, and I know which mainstream bands make this kind of music, but I don't have time to go listening to every indie artist to find out what they make.
What I'm looking for is a site where I can enter or select names of bands or songs that I like, and get independent music recommended to me. You like Alanis Morisette? Try Jen Pitch. That sort of thing. Does anybody know of such sites?
By the way: the example above is just an association I know from the top of my head; I'm not very much into the kind of music at all.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Oddly, I couldn't seem to find credits on that EFF page.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
``Breaking the DRM or distributing the tools to break DRM may expose you to liability under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) even if you're not making any illegal uses.''
So, does that mean fair use is not protected by law in the USA? I'm pretty sure that where I live, fair use is allowed even if the EULA forbids it or the technology prevents it. You can reverse-engineer the technology (a right protected by law), and an EULA that restricts your rights too far is not valid, even if you signed it.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Both are still illegal, their use still requires some kind of Robin Hood/civil disobedience line of reasoning to properly operate.
"I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
``Honestly. Buy a bloody CD then. You use a DRM'd music service you abide by the T+C's - what's so damn complicated about that that so many people just don't get it.''
The problem is that the ones selling the DRM'd content make every effort to conceal the restrictions. That's why people don't know they're paying but not buying. People expect that when they pay for something, they can do whatever they want with it. Now, these music stores are not going to tell them up front that this assumption is very much not true for the music they "sell". The media are not publishing anything about it. So how is J. R. Person supposed to know?!
``While I'd never like to see DRM'd files as the sole distribution method as this is to open to proprietry player lock-in, I have zero objection to it as an alternative method of purchasing music.''
The problem is that DRM is slowly becoming the standard. Most of the large online music stores that used to sell MP3s have either quit or switched to DRM'd formats. DVDs have protection mechanisms on them. Even CDs are often crippled these days (intentionally fscked up so that CD-ROM drives will barf on them).
All of this is happening under the radar, where J. R. Person doesn't notice it. After all, it still plays on his CD player or Windows machine! And when I tell them, they don't care, or they think it's not gonna be that bad. But I'm afraid their favorite music and movies are only going to be available in a very restricted format in the not too distant future.
Of course, there will still be people publishing things in unrestricted format. I'm supporting these people even now, and steering clear of any materials that have restrictive DRM or even just proprietary formats. But that does exclude a lot of popular music, movies, sofware, and information.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
I agree that no one is *forcing* anyone to use the DRM'd music, but the way things are going, we will have no choice but to use DRM'd music and video.
Big Tobacco is completely different. Tobacco is addicting (rather nicotine in Tobacco is addicting) and once you're hooked it's hard to be unhooked. Of course, no one forced you to get hooked in the first place other than yourself. But the point is once you're on cigarettes, it's hard to get off of them.
DRM is no such thing. It is not a product and it isn't something that consumers would want at all. I don't like Apple's DRM because I'd like to store my music in a format that I like and not be restricted by it. I don't 'illegally' share it or anything like that. I use the JHymn software to remove the FairPlay DRM from it. Doesn't really hurt much, it's my Fair Use right to do so. The courts have determined that.
The problem with DRM is that companies will soon impose it on us. If you have been following the HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray wars at all, you will know that the two camps are trying to say that they have *better* DRM than the other, stating that their format is effectively more DRM'd than the other. Microshaft has stated that in Vista, it will be handling media files much differently from how they are handled today. This will limit users' fair use rights. DRM is going to be imposed on us. It is not like tobacco which is only imposed on us if we use tobacco products or live with those who do.
The time has come to make a choice. Do we want software that, while preserving the 'rights' of select few (mainly the RIAA and the Five labels), arguably infringes upon our rights as users and as consumers? The US Constitution, Article I, Section 8 Clause 8 enumerates that Congress has the right "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" This is the legal stem of copyright. In the words of (former) Surpreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor:
Copyright is not an end for artists, it is an end for the immortalism of art and science.