Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DRM and Democracy

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the more-restrictions-are-always-fun dept.

jar writes to tell us Bruce Perens has a short editorial on why DRM could have an impact on much more than just our record collections. From the article: "Within the last century, electronic communications have increasingly become the vehicle of democratic discourse. Because radio and television broadcasting are expensive with limited frequencies available, the wealthy have dominated broadcasting. The Internet and World Wide Web place into the common man's hands the capability of global electronic broadcasting. [...] In order to protect democratic discourse in the future, the Internet must remain a fair and level playing field for the distribution of political speech. The full capability of the Internet must remain available to all, without restriction by religious, business, or political interests."

3 of 211 comments (clear)

  1. Orwellian? by HumanisticJones · · Score: 3, Informative

    While not quite on the level of taking over language and slowly redfining it so that it becomes imposible to put into words bad thoughts about the current system, the idea that companies and governments could control the net crosses into that. We've already seen the government deciding to re-classify materials resulting in libraries suddenly missing books. What will happen when they can do this with the internet too? Who in the future will be able to debate the mistakes of our day when there is no record of them open to the public?

  2. Freedom of Speech trumps DRM by scovetta · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm sorry, but I left my tin-foil at home on my dresser today. How exactly would DRM suppress freedom of speech (at the heart of the democratic process)? I can understand the TV/radio issue because they are finitely available resources, but the Internet is not the same. Let's say video/audio goes DRMed WMV/WMA, and maybe some DRMed DOC/HTML format becomes popular, too. So what? You can't copy/distribute out what other people (the companies) give you. Nothing stops you from distributing your own (non-DRMed) content.

    Of course, if non-DRMed content was made illegal, then that would change things dramatically, but I don't see how that would **ever** happen.

    DRM is a Bad Thing(TM), but I don't see it threatening democracy as the article suggests.

    --
    Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
  3. Re:Will anyone admit that DRM isn't bad? by umrain · · Score: 3, Informative
    Basically, mainstream America is fine with DRM. Implemented properly, it's a reasonable part of a solution to a the real problem of widescale IP theft.

    DRM IS widescale IP "theft". An important part of copyright is that content expires into the public domain. DRM uses a technical loophole to gain the benefits of copyright with none of the responsibilities. In preventing protections from expiring, DRM essentially "steals" content from the public domain.

    This is far more akin to the legal definition of theft than unauthorized copying has ever been.

    A trustworthy expiration mechanism would go a long way towards legitimizing DRM systems, yet this is seemingly never implemented.