GPL 3 to Take Hard Line on DRM

sebFlyte writes "ZDNet is reporting that Eben Moglen, the FSF's lead lawyer and the co-authour of GPL3, has explained that DRM is 'fundamentally incompatible' with the aims of the FSF and will be given short shrift in the latest version of the free software licence, which bans the use of 'digital restrictions' in GPL3 governed software. In his words: 'I recognise that that's a highly aggressive position, but it's not an aggression which we thought up. It's a defence related to an aggression which was launched against the people whose rights are our primary concern... We don't want our software used in a way which batters the head of the user to please somebody else. Our goal is the protection of users' rights, not movies' rights.'" We discussed the new GPL on Monday.

Comments

Wonderful

[KarmaOverDogma]

It's good to see someone with some amount of clout taking a stand against unreasonable constraint of fair use rights. I just hope that this becomes a catalyst in a chain reaction of rebellion against DRM, which manages access in the same way that a jail manages freedom (my apologies to the /.er who I took this .sig from - cant recall his/her name).

DRM based on trust?

[Arthur B.]

since every drm schemed is eventually going to be hacked, and therefore the protection removed, not only for the ubergeeks but for everyone through file sharing systems. Since current drm imply shady business with the OS (Sony rootkit) and rights restriction (copying music between all the devices you own etc), since DRM has been critized to assume the consumers where outlaws. Then why not make a jump. I'd suggest a DRM system based on a simple RDF file indicating what the user has the right to do with the file... this file is attached to the media content. Sure, it'll be extremely easy to crack, so easy it won't even be fun. Ethic media players would read the file and tell you, this is the 10th time you've read this file. I can't read it anymore you need to buy another lease, or buy the song entirely etc.... Maybe I'm just a dreamer... after all how many sharewares, most of whom where not based on restrictions, just on nag screens after a certain period, where registered? Well maybe it's different for music, I don't know... But after all, the current DRM situation is the same with a little more obfuscation that's it... so why not?

Re:Sony fiasco related?

[smittyoneeach]

Oh, I think the Sony DRM roll was just one point along a lengthy path.
Andy Oram had a nice blog entry on the whole topic, in particular, towards the bottom:

I hope FSF spokesperson Peter Brown is right in saying that we have a great opportunity to explain the benefits of freedom to the public over the coming year. I also sympathize with his claim that one must use the term "freedom" instead of focusing on "open source."
But opponents of the "open source" terminology always caricature the term and its supporters. Those who pushed for open source have promoted its ethics and community benefits just as free software proponents have. The virtue of "openness" as a general principle is powerful, and has brought people out on the streets in many countries.
I admit that the words "open source" do not slam the ethical challenge down on the table the way the word "freedom" does. But "open source" has helped free software spread to far more places in business and public organization. Now many more people have something to defend when the free software proponents warn them they're in danger of losing it.

The GPL is swell. I can agree that abdicating freedom through the use of proprietary software is stupid. Deeming the sale of such "unethical" seems subjective. More generally, fretting about the motives of others seems a collosal distraction. I dunno.
I wonder if the Free Software and Open Source communities don't have greater effect in combination than either would have had in isolation.
I also wonder if the chief benefactor of all the theological thumb-wrestling isn't sitting in Redmond.

Re:why is this necessary?

[tpgp]

Here's an interview with Richard Stallman discussing Linus's decision to include DRM in the linux kernel.

And here's a post from linus on the kernel mailing list (thread "flame linus to a crisp") talking about DRM in the linux kernel.

So there you go GPLed DRM.

Sorry, no.

[redelm]

When I write, it is principly to spread my ideas. Monetary compensation is secondary, if present at all. And I very much dislike reading those who write for lucre. It shows. Have you never seen an author "go bad" after early success? Clancey and Rowlings are obvious examples.

Re:Linus' thinking

[Al Dimond]

On your last point I agree; the "or later" clause to me means that anyone could choose to distribute so-licensed software under the terms of GPLv2 or GPLv3. But IANAL and there might be some other effect.

I don't think, however, that GPLv2 expresses the FSF's political views in the same was that GPLv3 does. GPLv2 restricts only the ways that derivative works can be distributed (they must be distributed with source). GPLv3 also appears to restrict the function of your derivative works (they cannot be used for DRM). And I think it means that using GPLv3 on your own servers to facilitate DRM is also not allowed (might be wrong on that one though) which would make it an end-user license.

GPLv2 expresses FSF's views on software distribution, while GPLv3 expresses FSF's views on software function. There is a big difference, and it could cause a lot of problems in the Free Software community. I can't say I agree with the changes in GPLv3, as someone that often waffles between preferring BSD-style licenses and GPLv2-style ones.

Re:My problem with DRM...

[swillden]

As a writer, I'd like to be paid for my work. I'd rather not make it easy for people to redistribute my work without compensating me.

Here's another writer's view on the issue. The whole essay is worth reading, but his second-to-last paragraph sums it up pretty well:

The future can't be foretold. But, whatever happens, so long as writers are essential to the process of producing fiction -- along with editors, publishers, proofreaders (if you think a computer can proofread, you're nuts) and all the other people whose work is needed for it -- they will get paid. Because they have, as a class if not as individuals, a monopoly on the product. Far easier to figure out new ways of generating income -- as we hope to do with the Baen Free Library -- than to tie ourselves and society as a whole into knots. Which are likely to be Gordian Knots, to boot.

And Eric Flint and other authors are putting their money where their mouth is: The Baen Free Library offers full, unabridged novels for free download, in multiple formats, with no DRM. Once they've gotten you hooked with that, the Baen Webscription site offers books for sale, for low prices, also in multiple formats and with no DRM.

Baen has also put CDs in the backs of several recent hardcover releases, containing other books from the same author, books from other authors that readers may like to try, plus high-resolution copies of cover artwork (without the book title or other text -- just the art). The CDs not only include no DRM, but they also have a statement printed on the label that *encourages* the sharing of the content with friends and family. Baen does ask that you don't distribute the content to the whole world, but has never sued anyone over it. There was one fan of David Weber's Honor Harrington series who put the full text of all of the Harrington books on his web site. Jim Baen found out about it, but rather than threatening a lawsuit, he simply sent the fan an e-mail and explained how the fan's actions were counterproductive and damaging. The fan promptly took the material off-line.

Baen has also recently started doing something new, too. They're now offering "Advance Reader Copies" of new books. These are unproofed versions of books that are going to be released in coming months. Serious fans buy them both because they don't want to wait for the release and also because there's something cool about reading their favorite authors' work in it's "raw, unpolished" form -- it's basically straight from the author's word processor. The advance copies start out at $15 and decline in steps as the publication date approaches. After release, of course, you can buy the final version for about $4.

Oh, and everything is in multiple formats, with absolutely no DRM.

This is innovation in publishing, and this is the sort of thing that can build a sufficiently large and loyal fanbase so that piracy is simply irrelevant.

According to Jim Baen, the experiment has been extremely successful and profitable. Not only has it increased the sales of their current top authors, it has also allowed them to publish -- and profit from -- lots of their back catalog that would otherwise be impossible to publish.

I know that I, personally, have spent *way* too much money on Baen books over the last two or three years. If there are others like me, and I'm sure there are, it's no wonder Baen is doing well.

Re:My problem with DRM...

[MoxFulder]

You nullify the point you were trying to make with your closing statement. An effective argument does not contradict itself.

I contradicted myself nowhere! Saying something is ineffective does NOT mean it's not unjust. I think that Soviet-style communism is a stunningly bad way to run a government (so much so that's it's collapsed in most of the countries where it was tried), but that doesn't mean it's not unjust and worth fighting against.

This is why so many anti-DRM types come off as reactionary, there is ALWAYS a way around the protection for thse inclined to find and use it, so DRM is NOT A BIG DEAL.

The fact that a crack is found for almost all DRM does not make my anti-DRM arguments invalid.

DRM is more than a technical measure these days. It is also a legal measure. You can be charged with a crime for distributing a DRM crack (e.g. Skylarov, DVD Jon), even if the DRM is hopelessly insecure from a technical perspective.

Furthermore, cracking DRM takes time and needlessly wastes resources. Lots of users don't know how to get the cracks. Plus the cracks typically only run on systems with well-documented operating systems. To my knowledge no one has released an iTunes DRM crack that actually runs *on the iPod*. So even if DRM is cracked on desktop computers, it can still render a lot of portable devices nearly useless if the original vendor turns evil.

The way I see it, the worst examples of DRM (I would not include iTunes in that group) constantly harass users, even if they're easily circumvented. Imagine if books had DRM, for example: your hardback books would lock themselves shut unless you plugged them into the phone line for a few seconds to open them. Even if there was an easy hack, you'd still be paying the publishing company to put that crap in the book in the first place.

My point is: DRM places an economic and legal burden on consumers even if it's easy to circumvent.