Slashdot Mirror
Criminalizing The Consumer - Where DRM Went Wrong
][nTrUdEr writes "The Economist has posted an editorial on how DRM has gone wrong. What ostensibly began as a tool to ensure artists received due compensation for their work has been turned, and now criminalizes the consumer for wanting to use what they have purchased. 'Despite the number of iTunes downloaded for a fee, Apple would be in trouble if people were prevented from transferring legitimately owned CDs to their iPods. The software Apple gives away to iPod customers is designed to let them do just that. Most people think it ludicrous that they can't do the same with the DVDs they own. Now it seems, despite squeals from the movie industry, the law is finally moving in the video fan's favour. The issue in the recent case was whether Kaleidescape, a maker of digital "jukeboxes" that store a person's video and music collections and distribute the entertainment around the home, had breached the terms of the DVD Content Control Association's CSS (content scrambling system) license.'"
Not yet you're not. The media companies have yet to receive any court judgements which strip away right of first sale and fair use. Just laws that act to impede such things like the DCMA and it's exported derivatives around the world.
Yes, but hopefully the pendulum in the courts has started to swing back to a more moderating influence.
Someone needs to remind the content companies that treating your customers like criminals, and impeding everything they do isn't going to get you more customers, it's going to get you less. And, graciously offering to give us our rights back in a roundabout way isn't the way to do it.
They buy all of these laws which, on the surface, are intended to stop the widespread commercial exploitation of people selling counterfeit items. But, it has the effect of not reducing piracy at all, and attempting to remove the rights of the average consumer to use the thing they've bought.
They're also trying to argue the line you seem to be buying into -- that when you buy a physical product (a DVD or a CD) that you're entering into a contractually binding obligation to only do what they like with it. That, is completely untrue, and I hope it stays that way.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Just as we have been clamoring for geek involvement in patent review, we should be clamoring for geek involvement in legislation review. Geeks can a) forsee future applications of technology and b) find potential bugs due to the similarity of rigidity and logic between law and code (see comments such as mine attached to Source Control For Bills In Congress?).
9 years. 9 years of prosecution. 9 years of our EFF dollars wasted having to fight this.
No, you're NOT. RIAA and MPAA members fully recognize this in their advertising. When a movie comes out on DVD, they don't say "license Narnia on DVD today" they say "Own Narnia on DVD today" and ditto for CDs.
It is a commodity product; just as with a book, when you buy it, you OWN it. It does come with some limited restrictions, e.g., you cannot make and distribute copies (in full or in part) outside of the Fair Use clause exceptions, but you absolutely, positively do own it.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Jobs argument is actually coherent, although the actual points he made was never reported in the Mainstream Moron Media. Jobs argues the biggest failings of DRM is:
* It doesn't work.
* It's too easily cracked, and patching the DRM software to stop cracks is a losing battle.
* The RIAA sell the very same music unprotected on CDs anyway(!!!!!!)
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/
Anything that causes Macrovision stock to crash has to be a good thing.