Slashdot Mirror
EFF Gets Animated About DRM with The Corruptibles
Lurker McLurker writes "An animation from the EFF shows DRM technology as a group of supervillans who aim to invade your home, interfere with your devices and stop you from using your digital media the way you want to, even if it is legitimate. Doesn't say anything about the subject most of us wouldn't know, but a great link to send to your friends as an introduction to the issue."
It'll be good at educating the masses, though it does seem really dumbed down, feels a bit abstract to me.
my band is more brutal techno punk than yours
I think I personally would have visualized the character of "Analog Hole" as a lot older... certainly not a kid.
Wasn't a free market and capitalism supposed to drive innovation and technology? Oh wait, yeah, Microsoft, never mind.
Really, reading some of these proposed laws the clear message from the RIAA/MPAA is, "To ensure our continued hand-in-the-cookie-jar obscene money making machine, we demand the government enact protective legislation." Guess what? They're "gettin' 'er done"! Innovative ideas and extensions and forks of cool, useful, for-the-betterment-of-man technology fall by the wayside by fiat, at the entertainment industry's prompt.
Again, ignoring the thesis for the moment that increased use of all of these digital technologies actually serve the entertainment industry spurring new growth in unexpected demographics, the new and improved technology traditionally has been the keystone of other new technologies. Often, as mentioned in a recent slashdot article, new directions are discovered accidentally. Squelch digital devices and you squelch potential new and rich fields of devices.
The RIAA and MPAA, what a bunch of fucktards.
I think this is a good idea, but I really wish more people would put subtitles on their flash videos, the EFF no exception.
Seriously, how hard would it be to spend some 10 minutes adding subtitles?
I do like the idea, though.
if the only people who see this are already in agreement with the EFF on this one?
I have shown this clip to a few colleagues, and they just dont understand how these things effect them.
Talking about HDTV, mixing down from Digital Radio, and Digitizing commercial products for school projects is not the way to appeal to the mass consumer market.
Recording TV shows and making a favorites CD out of your music collection are more accessble principles to the mass market, and these are what should be highlighted.
DRM is not evil. DRM is not wrong. Improper application and bad laws are.
Fight the laws and bad applications of DRM, not DRM itself.
MS to be fair seem to have made reasonable efforts to unify DRM with it's 'plays for sure' thingy (although I've no experience on how restrictive it actually is)
And if I have a Mac or Linux box?
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Now see, I had mod points today, and unfortunately there isn't a mod "wrong", otherwise I'd have used it right away.
DRM IS WRONG. In any form ever for anything. It stifles the advance of human progress, be it technologically, in the arts, or even politically. Advocating DRM ever for anything is like advocating AIDS ever for anything. Sure occasionally some real fucktard like Dick Cheney might get AIDS and that would be great. However, AIDS itself still sucks, and I'd advocate taking him out another way.
Specifically in this case prison time for purjury and election rigging until his pace maker gives out. Over all AIDS is still bad. Just like DRM.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
The real problem is that it is almost impossible to constrain piracy while not infringing on fair use. These same types of things were brought up with the advent of VCRs and there has been no companies that have gone bankrupt (to my knowledge) because of VCRs. In my opinion, DRM is not necessary, and companies could make even more profit without it if they gave the consumers more options to get what they want, how they want it. Take a tip from Burger King, "Your way, right away."
DRM to constrain piracy = Good
Well DRM does not constrain piracy. It only hurts the
Zip. Nadda. Not one bit.
If a pirate wants to copy something or get a copy of something, he already has the tools to bypass whatever DRM you throw at him. Those who end up being hurt all the time is Joe Six packs who buy a copy and then the company that sold him the media goes bankrupt or his drm copy goes bad and he couldn't make fair use backups of it.
The "truth" about DRM is to make people buy media twice when they already own a licence for it.
And guess what happens to DRM when the copyright expires in 100 years from now? You still have DRM and may heaven help you if you are a historian trying to research early 21st century history and can't seem to find tools to read archaic DRM schemes (although I'll give our descendants the benefit of the doubt with computer skills by 2100.)
Not to mention this media is supposed to go into public domain once the DRM expires... But DRM is cheating the spirit of copyright law by making this impossible.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
That's kind of the whole point of this debate. Idiots like the EFF paint DRM as some kind of evil monster, when the truth is that it's just an effort on the part of the people who own things and want to be able to sell them without having them stolen to find a technological solution to what's clearly a societal problem.
The problem with DRM as a technical solution is that it uses my computer against me. My computer works for me. It doesn't work for anyone else without my permission... and that's why I don't use DRM.
DRM isn't "evil" until people no longer have the choice of refusing it.
That is why the EFF's campaign is important. It educates people about it, so that the market will make the right decision before DRM becomes an inescapable de facto standard.
The video is very cool and well done. But along the same lines as what you were saying, the video seems to assume that people understand copyright law, including fair use, and then goes on to explain how DRM can prevent you from doing things that are perfectly legal. The thing is, most people don't understand copyright law, and have never heard of fair use. The video uses the example of a kid trying to put a video snippet in her electronic school report. Although that clearly falls within fair use, I think most people, who don't know about fair use, would either think (a) the kid should be stopped from doing it, because it's illegal, or (b) it's illegal, but the law is stupid, so it's ok for the kid to break it. Same thing on the personal use exception, which would be relevant for the DVR example. I was unclear myself on the example of the mix CD -- is the EFF saying it's legal under personal use? Would it depend on whether the woman is his wife, who lives in the same house with him, or his girlfriend, who doesn't?
They think that they will always be able to find a way to break encryption and use music they've purchased however they like
I've heard a lot of speculation about how the analog hole could be plugged, for example, but so far I haven't seen it happen. It seems likely to me that any analog copy-protection system could be worked around by a sufficiently sophisticated digital or analog filtering system. Then the question is whether the media industry can make the relevant filtering software or hardware illegal. If it's as simple as a band-reject filter, then it doesn't seem likely.
Find free books.
It's some kind of unviewable Flash nonsense that doesn't work on my operating system, and which I wouldn't enable even if it would work.
When are sites going to start posting actual videos instead of the pseudo crap that is Flash?
when the truth is that it's just an effort on the part of the people who own things and want to be able to sell them without having them stolen
The problem is that these people want to sell the things they own and still own them afterwards.
As much as I love the EFF and everything they do (I donate every month), I don't like the movie on its purely presentational qualities.
1. It presents too many things too fast. Everything happends too fast. I showed it to someone unfamiliar with the issue, and who had only vaguely heard some of the terms used (analog hole, fair use, and the like). Her reaction was in the lines of "Huh? What the...? Can you play that again?"
2. It uses a foolishly cartoonish "superhero" style. When I see those overly comic-style "superhero" images with sharp lines, simple colors, and dumb logos on their chests, I find them stupid. They look stupid. This gives the whole video a comic feel, taking away any seriousness it might have wanted to imply. It fails to shock the unsuspecting viewer with what should be a shocking revelation. Don't get me wrong; the problem is not any crude drawing, but the adherence to the "comic superhero" style. Even the voice-over sticks to it...
3. It doesn't explain anything. What's going on? This is the most difficult one to get right, but a video has to at least try to explain part of the issue. You could say it only tries to turn your attention to the issue, but it doesn't... the video, as it is, requires one to do some serious background reading. How many people, who have never bothered with the issue before, are going to just stop what they were doing and start reading about DRM?
Number 2 is the biggest flaw in my opinion. Most people would oppose DRM if they knew about it, but if I send the link to anyone who's even a little sceptic about the importance of opposing DRM and the magnitude of its danger, that person would laugh at me. One already did, saying "What the hell is this bullshit?". The question was about the cartoonish guys, not the issue presented. I love the idea though, and hope they will come up with something better next time.
It's more like buying a product that stops working when you use it in an unapproved manner. Like a screwdriver that you can't pry open a can of paint with, a hammer that pounds nails but not chisels, a mattress you can't take the tags off of, or scissors that cut cloth but not paper. Not because of technical limitations, but because the manufacturers think it might possibly hurt their business.