30 Days of DRM

sonofollson writes "Michael Geist, a Canadian law professor, in the middle of a 30 Days of DRM project, which is targeting the planned introduction of the DMCA in Canada. Each day, the project identifies an exception or limitation that is needed to address the danger of anti-circumvention legislation. Issues covered so far include interoperability, privacy, region coding, and reverse engineering. The project is also supporting a wiki version for broader participation."

Comments

Cool movie

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy tried to live one month on nothing but copy protection systems but choked on a dongle after 9 days.

Great idea

[magictiger]

This is a great idea. Unfortunately, the only people likely to find this are those that already know the need for exceptions to DRM laws. I hope the Canadians pass this along to their legislators and that someone actually bothers to read the blog.

Maybe if we'd had something like this before the DMCA, we could have made it a little less restrictive. (No way in hell the **AAs would have let it die)

Re:Great idea

[kimvette]

FWIW, I'm not Canadian, just pointing this out so Canadians here know to contact their reps:

OK, if DRM and the equivalent of the DMCA is introduced in Canada, effectively eliminating their equivalent of Fair Use, will the levies on blank media be repealed?

Re:Great idea

[Safiire Arrowny]

I would prefer to have the blank media tax, and to just be left alone in peace to do what I want with my media.

Re:Great idea

[djmurdoch]

As a Canadian, I can tell you that there are no such levies on CDs or DVDs, because they are argued as being used for computer data.

This is wrong. There are levies on blank CDs, because they are commonly used to record music, whether they are "CD-audio" or not.

See the current rates here.

Re:Great idea

[nsayer]

In the U.S. the reason there are "music" CD-Rs that cost more than data CD-Rs is because of the American Home Recording Act. This was the grandfather of the DMCA. It requires a levy to be placed on all blank media for standalone digital audio recording devices. It was the AHRA that was used to attempt to bludgeon the Diamond RIO out of existence back in the day (it failed, because the Rio was judged to be a computer peripheral). The AHRA does not apply to computer peripherals, so that's why data CD-Rs are sold that are cheaper, even though you can record Red Book audio track disks with them. The AHRA was what killed the DAT as a consumer audio component back in the day and relegated them to studio audio and computer data applications.

Re:Great idea

[CastrTroy]

They can be used, does not they must be used. There are so many other uses of CDs that it's pretty much impossible to charge a levy. When you look at audio cassettes, there are very few uses apart from recording audio, so it's easy to argue that a levy should be charged. If there is a levy in Canada, how much is it? Because I can go to the local discount computer store and get 50 CDs for $12. That works out to $0.24 for each CD. The Canadian copyright board states that they levy on CDRs is supposed to be $0.21 per CD ($0.77 for CDR-Audio). I find it highly unlikely that the levy is being charged, and that I'm only paying $0.03 per CD including retail markup, transportation, manufacturing, and all the other costs of delivering CDRs to the end user. Also, to reiterate, there is absolutely no levy on DVD+/-Rs.

Re:Great idea

[RareButSeriousSideEf]

I have a CD recorder / player (Yamaha) in my component stereo system, and it will only record on the "CDR Music" type discs that carry the extra fee. Of course, there is no way around this fee if I am recording, e.g., a session of my own band's rehearsal from an old cassette tape or whatnot. I've also not yet heard of any way to see the cashflow from the extra fee, in order to verify that it is indeed making it to the artists for which it was levied in the first place.

Lastly, if the manufacture of these discs ever ceases, I am stuck with a play-only unit in my stereo rack. Nice, eh?

Sure hope somebody reverse engineers these and starts manufacturing them independently one of these days. I'd actually pay *more* for a product if a portion of its cost supported anti-DRM organizations.

Re:Great idea

[Jardine]

Because I can go to the local discount computer store and get 50 CDs for $12. That works out to $0.24 for each CD. The Canadian copyright board states that they levy on CDRs is supposed to be $0.21 per CD ($0.77 for CDR-Audio). I find it highly unlikely that the levy is being charged, and that I'm only paying $0.03 per CD including retail markup, transportation, manufacturing, and all the other costs of delivering CDRs to the end user.

That store is doing one of two things. They're not paying the levy or they're selling CDRs at a loss to get you into the store to buy other things that they will make a profit on.

Re:Great idea

[Feyr]

that's wrong. canada does have a fair use. it's called "fair dealing"

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/cipo/cp/copy_gd _protect-e.html#6

Re:Great idea

[Paul Slocum]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank_media_tax#Canad a

Re:Great idea

[crossmr]

I've written my MP 3 times.
Though I'm not sure how much of this is FUD. The Conservative government is in a very precarious position. The wrong move and the victory they let the Liberals screw up so badly for is gone.
Turning everyone into criminals isn't going to benefit them during the next election when they go for a majority government.

Which I've reminded my MP of in the last 2 letters.

Re:Great idea

[djmurdoch]

Fair dealing is much more limited than fair use. For example, it wouldn't allow you to make a copy for time shifting, or media shifting. But you might be right that it's closer to being "Canada's equivalent of fair use" than private copying is. I just tend to think of "equivalent" as being a black and white relation.

Wikipedia has a nice discussion of the differences between fair use and fair dealing.

I could have said "Canada has no equivalent of Fair Use. Our Fair Dealing is quite different.", but the private copying levy has nothing to do with fair dealing.

Re:Great idea

[RealGrouchy]

There is an exception to having to pay this levy.

In order to avoid paying this levy, you have to be an eligible organization (e.g. businesses who legitimately don't use it for ripping CDs, churches, NGOs, etc.). You then have to pay a $60/year ($15/year for non-commercial) registration fee with the CPCC, and you can only buy levy-free CDs from CPCC-certified manufacturers and distributors (NOT retailers).

So essentially, either you pay the levy to the CPCC, or you pay the CPCC other money so that you don't pay them the levy. Either way, you're paying more, and they're getting your money, all because they preemptively convict you of stealing music.

(Organizations for the perceptually disabled can get a rebate on their levy from the CPCC.)

Source: www.cpcc.ca

- RG>

Re:Great idea

[KDR_11k]

In other words, abolish property?

Re:Great idea

[RareButSeriousSideEf]

I don't know about Canada, but in the US, I can buy CD-Rs dirt cheap (i.e., at similar prices to those you mention), but I can only buy *CD-R Music* discs at a significantly higher price. Only the latter will work in my rack CD recorder (made by Yamaha). The difference in price goes mostly to the RIAA.

The only difference between the discs is a simple flag specifying the type. It is allegedly illegal to sell an audio CD recorder (non-computer peripheral) here that allows recording onto a non-taxed disc.

If it is currently legal in Canada to deal in such equipment, please let me know, because I would love to be able to use cheaper spindles of CD-Rs for those audio recordings that I do not make through my computer. What's more, I would love to keep whatever money possible out of the hands of the RIAA, and as much as it shocks and dismays me to find myself saying this, I am willing to break United States law if it means exercising my fair use rights while reducing their influx of cash. Not long ago I would not have gone that far, but I'm afraid the time for mealy-mouthed opposition to these crimelords is long past.

the most important

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM doesn't expire, so the media never makes it to the public domain
by design of course

Re:the most important

[aussie_a]

if you were to crack the DRM on something that was in the public domain I doubt there's a court in the land that would convict you, or a record company in the land that would sue you.

I have a bridge to sell you.

Re:the most important

[wall0159]

"if you were to crack the DRM on something that was in the public domain I doubt there's a court in the land that would convict you"

Uh huh - and what happens when your media player *only* accepts DRMd media? where will you be then?

The way things are going, this will happen - especially as more companies become both vendors of hardware *and* media...

Re:the most important

[Anonymous Coward]

if you were to crack the DRM on something that was in the public domain I doubt there's a court in the land that would convict you

Doesn't matter. The law is very clear. In the United States, it is a violation of the DMCA to circumvent DRM of any kind. Cracking DRM is a criminal act by the clear letter of the law. U.S. websites have had injunctions upheld against them simply for telling others where to go to find information about circumventing DRM. So, your guesses as to what would happen if someone were to be accused of DRM violation do not do one thing to put at ease the minds of those who would like to view public domain content which has been put under DRM seal. But it is good that you believe the public is against this application of the DMCA. Feeling similarly, perhaps you can work to get bad law overturned.

Re:the most important

[EsonLinji]

But that's the problem. When you make the act of circumventing DRM a crime, it doesn't matter what content it was protecting. You still break the law by circumventing it. Which is exactly why such laws are bad. You should be able to make a copy of something in the public domain, but you can't. And don't rely on the record companies to let you off easy. It took mass negative media coverage for them to let a dead guy off the hook.

Re:the most important

[Reziac]

I agree absolutely that DRM on public domain material is inherently an oxymoron, but that doesn't make the law see it that way. IANAL, but I think it would depend on whether there is a sunset provision in the DRM law itself. As it stands now in the US, something could be out of copyright, yet it is (AFAIK) still illegal to crack the DRM. The two facets are, unfortunately, separate legal issues.

Beyond that, one would have to trust to the fairness and common sense of the courts, not always the best bet. :(

Also, it would be best if such a case went to conclusion and set a precedent (hopefully of "Death to DRM"), rather than being dismissed to be tried another day, possibly with disastrous results.

Re:the most important

[Kaenneth]

The problem is, that corporations keep lobbying to extend the duration of copyrights retroactivly, and for longer and longer terms; when with the increased pace of creation and distribution I think the terms should be getting shorter (at least for Software, and such).

Re:the most important

[penix1]

"Are you referring to the USA or Canada? Because if it's USA, you know better than to think something will become public domain here. (Yes, I'm being sarcastic)"

Although you are being sarcastic you are also telling the truth. Jack Valenti the head of the MPAA, has stated, "The constitutional definition of "limited time" to me means the end of the universe minus 30 seconds". He has also stated that if people want to back up their copies, they can damned well buy the backup. Another gem from him is his belief that the public domain is useless unless you can profit from it.

See http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/002065.shtml for more enjoyable quotes from this sock puppet..

B.

Re:the most important

[megaditto]

Don't worry, in time, Darwin will sort it out.

DRMed societies will stagnate due to the luck of innovation, restrictions on the exchange and development of ideas, etc. In time, 'North America' will be 'liberated' by a more advanced nation, and while some of our children will lose their lives, we will all be arguably better for it under our technologically superior masters.

History is full of examples: 16th century Spain stagnating after expelling freethinkers and Jews, middle age Arabs imposing a religious DRM of sorts on mathematics and philosophy (after inventing numberals, discovering monumental laws, etc. they started chopping off people's digits for heresy). Japan 'DMRing' their culture until 1850s. Chinese hiding behind their Great Firewall after initially inventing gunpowder, philosophy, paper/printing, and flight.

DRM or not, the Human Race will go on (whether it be our children or China's children). Darwin sorts it out in the end.

I for one welcome our future DRM-free overlords.

Region coding? About reducing sales

[krell]

From the article: "Region coding is not about copyright, it is about market controls and a loss of consumer property rights. It should not benefit from additional copyright legal protections that would come from anti-circumention legislation."

How about the idea that region coding is all about reducing sales and increasing unauthorized duplication of DVDs? I run into so many DVDs that are not sold in any form for my region, and will never be sold for my region. That leaves me the options (a) not buying it at all, or (b) buying it and cracking it or perhaps getting a more usable pre-cracked version (barring the ability to get a DVD player that does all regions).

Reverse Engineering ...

[Gopal.V]

Different standards exist for reverse engineering. For example, reverse engineering a binary is illegal, while reverse engineering a protocol (for compatibility purposes) isn't.

But the real question to ask is, a .doc a binary file or a protocol ?

(and then there are EULAs ... which have started saying "You shall be responsible for anything any user does... to cover shared envs")

Great, more angrying up of my blood.

[w33t]

I am glad that Michael Geist is forcing a very close examanation of the limitations a DCMA - but why is a DCMA even needed in the first place?

In a way it feels like he's discussing ways to make a noose more comfortable and less abrasive to the victims throat.

The thing is, whenever DRM is discussed I cannot help by attempt to prognosticate into the deep mysterious future. Imagine a future (not too distant perhaps) in which we have direct brain interfaces of some sort. How would it be to have certain thoughts blocked? How would it be to not be able to think something?

Thoughtcrime - in other words. Oh, it's disgusting to me.

After all, DRM is basically a way of locking-down information. But information is so close to just thought. It's one step away from a pure idea.

When I hear DRM I think "Idea Stopping" - and being an idealist as I am, this is deeply disturbing to me.

DMCAs are so prehistoric to me - they seem to hail from the time in the past when the distribution of information required printing presses and tape-duplication facilities. When information distribution liked physical mediums for distribution.

In those ancient times of the 20th century only the wealthy could afford these behemoth machines. There was no way a consumer could copy a novel and send it to 20 or 100 of their closest friends.

Of course nowadays I can find the entire works and easily distribute them without all that mucking about with the physical constraints that plagued the old.

DRM and DMCAs seem analogous to a cart and buggy and wagon industry forcing automobile owners to not drive faster than the horse-drawn carriages because of their "right" to the road.

It is old-world philosophy being artificially forced into the modern mindset.

Re:Great, more angrying up of my blood.

[Zarxrax]

Well, it's true that the best solution would be to simply not have a DMCA at all, but often, this simply isn't possible. The people who don't want it are not as powerful or persuasive as the people who DO want it. Completely stopping something like this can be difficult--but lessening the impact that it has can often be more easily obtainable. Compromise sucks. The side that compromises is the side that loses something. But when it comes down to it, its a lot better to lose something than to lose everything.

Cold Mexico just doesn't get it

[ColdWarrior]

From the eschewing of media at soldier repatration ceremonies to the introduction of a Canadian DMCA, I have started to surmise that Harper is one of those fallocrats who is totally out of touch with his citizenry. Now, before you Harper-loving people start saying "But... but... but... the Bern convention requires this sort of thing". I ask you, when was the Bern convention signed. In my mind there is no coincidence that all these "harmonizations" are going on under Mr. Creepy-eyes reign. This is just one more sign of the coming North American Union .

If I am the copyright owner

[tepples]

Uh huh - and what happens when your media player *only* accepts DRMd media? where will you be then?

If I am the owner of copyright in a work, why don't I have the authority to apply true and correct copyright management information to the work? Or are you basing this on yerricde's hypothesis that it is impossible to create an original musical work?

Re:If I am the copyright owner

[wall0159]

I think you misundersand me.

Imagine an ipod in the future. The ipod doesn't play mp3s anymore - it *only* plays Apple's DRMd music. I'm a musician, and record my band playing music, but I can't put it on my ipod directly - I have to implement DRM on the music for the ipod to play it.

This could happen.

"If I am the owner of copyright in a work, why don't I have the authority to apply true and correct copyright management information to the work?"

I don't know exactly what you mean by this, but I think you're looking at it the wrong way around. If I pay you to experience your creation, by what right to you seek to regulate the way I experience it? Will you try and tell me what colour shoes I may wear, for example?

Note that there are two issues here. The first is artist renumeration. This is important, because without it people will be less inclined to produce art. The second is control, and it has nothing to do with renumeration for the artist. Instead it's about power for the distributers of the art - power over both the artist and those who wish to experience their art.

Remember that copyright is not a 'right' per se - it's a TEMPORARY incentive given by the government to help people to profit from their creations, thereby encouraging creation for the benefit of humanity.

Re:If I am the copyright owner

[penix1]

" This is important, because without it people will be less inclined to produce art..."

I challenge this concept. Nowhere has it been proved. In fact, there are several studies that show that those things that are pirated also enjoy a higher profit margin. To say that all media content will dry up if copyright didn't exist flies in the face of logic as well as human nature. The only one that benefits from copyright is the distributors.

I'll go one step further....

I say to fix the copyright problem, disallow the transfer of copyright except to the public domain. All rights to a work belong to the originator of that work. Then what the **AA is touting (namely that artists suffer when copyright is violated) would be true. Make it so that the only place an artist can relinquish copyright to is the public domain which is the purpose of copyright to begin with.

This is just my take on it. Reality differs dramatically.

B.

This DRM experiment is useless

[Khyber]

There will always be a way to circumvent the DMCA.

You cannot close the "analog hole" because we are purely analog-sensory beings. We cannot reliably have digital information put into our brain and decoded into a usable form without reliable biological-neurological wiring. With that simple logic, until neural wetware becomes commonplace (scary world that'll be,) the DMCA is absolute bullshit. I can simply circumvent your protection by going to a friend's house to watch a movie they bought but I never paid for. I can store that entire movie in "memory" (if I'm capable of that type of photo-auralgenic storage like other 'geniuses.') and tell others what the whole movie is about, which may/may not discourage them to see the movie, thus resulting in a loss of profit for the movie, or even after-movie DVD/VCR sales. Kiss your "unauthorized" use clause good-bye. We can hurt the **AA cause thru that means alone, and I'll bet with the current shit crop of movies coming out (Like Talladega Nights, compared to The Descent,) the sales are going to drop even further. I can simply watch a movie, tell everyone what it's all about, and they'll decide for themselves whether or not the movie is worth watching, in their opinion. And speaking technically, I didn't pay for it, so by going to a friend's house to watch a movie they paid for, I'm getting a public performance (because they explicitly state with a sign on their property "This is not private property, whatever happens here is public and sent to the police,") without paying for the rights to view the money. Now what are you going to do, RI/MPAA? Sue me for visiting a friend who happens to be showing a movie they paid for? You've tried twice already, let's go for a third strike so we can wipe you out legally.

I apologize in advance for potential double-ranting (restating the same rant twice in the same post,) but I felt the need to drive this into people's heads. Even if the general Slashdot crowd knows about this stuff, there are many others that join every day, and are rather ignorant, as I once was before I got some extra education from more knowledgable people on Slashdot. We need to keep this type of information flow happening, in my opinion. Let's keep it up so less knowledgable people have more plain-english definitions for the layman to understand, guys.

DVD players: collect all 6

[tepples]

That leaves me the options (a) not buying it at all, or (b) buying it and cracking it or perhaps getting a more usable pre-cracked version (barring the ability to get a DVD player that does all regions).

(c) DVD players: collect all 6 while supplies last!

Re:This is great, but....

[CastrTroy]

Joe Sixpack does care, to the extent that it starts to bother him. My GF recently got an iPod, and despite me telling her not to, still bought a couple tracks off iTunes. She quickly learned that she was unable to burn an "MP3" CD, to listen to them on her stereo. She also got quite a big scare when she deleted all her music and thought she had lost the music (she had just deleted them from the library, and they were still on the computer). She also gets quite annoyed when she plugs her iPod into another computer to charge it, and all the tracks get erased because that iPod isn't registered with that computer. She would also love to be able to just drag and drop from windows explorer right onto her iPod, but it seems as though that doesn't work either. Once DRM starts to infringe on people's rights enough, they will start to care. I'm still waiting for an MP3 player to come out that's actually better than the iPod, then watch all the iTunes users rise up, because they don't really own any of their music, but rather just own the right to play it on an iPod (yes i'm aware you can burn and rerip, but that loses quality on an already inferior quality copy).

Re:This is great, but....

[Jack Action]

Michael Geist writes a weekly column on law and technology for the Toronto Star, Canada's largest newspaper. The Star is a significant venue because its middle brow (not tabloid, but not the New York Times), and always has a populist favour.

He is also frequently called on as a commentor on CBC radio (the public broadcaster, which by law can be heard by Canadians anywhere in the country). CBC radio recieves no ads and no coporate sponsorship (unlike PBS), so is generaly balanced on controversial issues.

In Canada at least, someone like Geist has a greater chance of reaching Jaques Six-Pack than he might have elsewhere.

Last election

[saskboy]

In the last federal Canadian election, Dr. Geist can take at least partial credit in helping to defeat the Liberal's MP that was pushing a Canadian DMCA through the House. It would be wise of geeks and nerds from around the world to support his effort on educating politicians on the implications of DRM protection in laws.

Re:Talking about DRM... FairUse4WM strips WMA/WMV

[assassinator42]

Working link.
They had a few download links for a day or so as well. I do know the program works. I wonder how long it will be until Microsoft fixes it? More importantly, can they make it stop working without making people install an update?

Wretched idea

[RareButSeriousSideEf]

Uhm, you do realize that the blank media tax would eseentially fund organizations that spend every waking moment finding ways to keep you from being left alone to do what you want with your media, don't you?

Alternatives to DMCA

[lucychili]

This is one of those issues which pokes pretty close to home. Its also an issue which is best understood by people with some technical background who can unpack the difference between content and the DRM or TPM around it. This means its not easy for non tech consumer groups to defend people's rights on these issues without support and explanations from their local geeky community.

There are plenty of different things we can do - from an email only approach to face to face talking to people.
Tell people and politicians about the kinds of access rights that make invention, creativity, research, humour,
exploration, tinkering, critique, reverse engineering, remixing, adapting and restoring possible.

Get into promoting digital access rights like these:
http://www.adelphicharter.org/

Check out the Access to Knowledge Treaty developed by creators and users:
http://www.cptech.org/a2k/ (link on left Draft Treaty)

Don't be afraid to lobby at the UN level. These things are being promoted through international trade organisations so do check out
what is happening at WIPO and other international forums.
http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions_for_1st_I GF.htm

And Software Freedom Day is on 16 September
http://softwarefreedomday.org/