Slashdot Mirror
EFF Asks FTC To Demand 'Truth In Labeling' For DRM (techdirt.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Techdirt: Interesting move by Cory Doctorow and the EFF in sending some letters to the FTC making a strong case that DRM requires some "truth in labeling" details in order to make sure people know what they're buying. The argument is pretty straightforward (PDF): "The legal force behind DRM makes the issue of advance notice especially pressing. It's bad enough when a product is designed to prevent its owner from engaging in lawful, legitimate, desirable conduct -- but when the owner is legally prohibited from reconfiguring the product to enable that conduct, it's vital that they be informed of this restriction before they make a purchase, so that they might make an informed decision. Though many companies sell products with DRM encumbrances, few provide notice of these encumbrances. Of those that do, fewer still enumerate the restrictions in plain, prominent language. Of the few who do so, none mention the ability of the manufacturer to change the rules of the game after the fact, by updating the DRM through non-negotiable updates that remove functionality that was present at the time of purchase." In a separate letter (PDF) from EFF, along with a number of other consumer interest groups, but also content creators like Baen Books, Humble Bundle and McSweeney's, they suggest some ways that a labeling notice might work.
We need just a few standard form models for DRM like Model A, Model B, ...Model D, that are standard commercial options and well understood broadly.
We need a complaint mechanism with teeth for false representation and tortutious interference,
"Own it (snicker) on DVD!"
Securom and Starforce could legitimately impair your computer's ability to function because they installed themselves as DEVICE DRIVERS.
I'd like to see the government provide relief from DRM-related laws when a company goes out of business, drops support for a product, or when the (ever lengthening) copyright term expires. In fact, I'd like to see that in order be able to assert copyright over an encumbered work that the rights holder must have on deposit with the Library of Congress all necessary software/devices/documentation/etc. to ensure that the Library of Congress can remove the encumbrances for all US citizens when it becomes appropriate under the law (e.g., the work is abandoned or its copyright term expires). The way things are going now, we are going to end up with an entire generation of creative works which will be under a, for all practical purposes, perpetual copyright. Sure the technology will eventually advance to the point that today's DRM will be breakable like a child's toy, but the cases will still have to be fought in court. The perversion of copyright needs to be fixed properly instead of leaving it as a battle for future generations.
I want DRM'd money to spend on DRM products.
So I can control what the company is allowed to spend it on, after I give it to them in exchange for the goods/services.
The "decided after X months not to let you keep the money after all" is going to be a killer feature.
.... the human mind didn't evolve to make rational decisions, especially not regarding technology. Technically any literate person would not want to license cultural works like games, the source code for videogames should theoretically be held by a library in escrow and copyright terms should never be beyond the lifetime of the game (5-10 years) so that it goes public domain. The whole of IP law is corrupt and the masses are too ignorant and illiterate to defend themselves because human mind simply doesn't work on rationality as the enlightenment thought.
See the science:
Enlightenment ideas regarding human reasoning are incorrect
Then they patched in "telemetry" that required a new EULA consent form. They stole the game from me with an update.
And mexico will be so happy to pay for the wall.
To keep out the Americans who are fleeing from President-elect Trump!
The company names listed are not what I would call "content creators", since technically their business is built around capitalizing on the distribution of content that OTHER people have created.
when I moved once I was in a new city by myself. I went out and bought a game for PC. Mindful that I didn't have internet I picked up Dragon Age Origins. I looked the box over and there was some vague note about an internet connection on the DVD case. Figuring I was home free I took it home and found I couldn't play it w/o internet (and no refunds on open software, of course).
To be fair I knew I was taking a risk. The game was already discounted for clearance. But it still would have been nice to have a big read label with something like "DRM. No Internet, No Worky" instead of a vague sentence in print best read with IBM's scanning electron microscope.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
We need to stop using the acronym DRM, call it what it is, Digital Restrictions Malware.
And while we're at it, maybe we can get companies to stop saying "Buy [the DVD/Bluray] Today!" in their commercials.
While I agree completely with the EFF and the statements in the summary about how we should get notice before purchase, all I can say is, "Good luck with that!". It isn't going to happen. There is no way the FTC or any other government group is going to come up with a rule to enforce something like this. After all, "it is anti-business!" so it can't be good, right? The bought and paid for folks who work in government are not allowed by their puppet masters to implement rules that might make it look like the media cartels aren't the good guy. After all, how far have we gotten with the whole "buy it", "own it" crap that they do when it is really just a license and all that you own is the plastic it came on?
"EFF Asks FTC To Demand 'Truth In Labeling' For DRM "
Nah, we don't need that, just take your business to a competitor:
https://thepiratebay.org/
https://kickass.cd/
"This work contains technological protection measures that may interfere with fair use".
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I think it's brilliant. If they were forced to be totally honest, and write "future upgrades may remove this functionality" on all major functionality, like it truly is, they wouldn't sell a single unit. They'd be forced by market forces to not put that into the label, and that would force them legally to not remove functionality.
So, let me repeat, I think this request is brilliant.
Makes perfect sense. If a product has been deliberately crippled, then the customer has a right to know prior to purchase. No reasonable person would expect otherwise.
I may use Steam unironically, but I draw the line at having to sign up for DRM that sits on top of DRM.
Absolutely.
But you could construct a case where e.g. a radio device is subject to operate in different frequencies based on the country it is used in. (Like ANY wifi adapter.)
While the operating frequencies might be configurable (SDR), a DRMed Firmware may limit your access to this setting and thus prevent you from setting it to use a channel where it can be operated legally. Or less academically worded: Thanks to DRM you need to buy a new device when moving abroad. The ability to select different channel ranges based on a country selection may be allowed in some devices, but can be removed by a mandatory firmware update at will.
Or - in movie plot style - secret agency tracks down enemy number one in remote country. have manufacturer of his cellphone send a firmware update to switch baseband chip to frequency used by local military and have him arrested by local junta for espionage instead of getting your own hands dirty. (please comment on feasibility and not probability. I know it's a movie-plot style example)
bickerdyke
Verizon is notorious for locking phones on their network, preventing updates and general intransigence in the face of crumbling Android security.
The FTC should make an example of Verizon - key escrow that opens for any phone that reaches six months without a security patch.
Verizon has demonstrated that control is more important than security. The public should demonstrate, through the regulatory actions of the FTC, that security is more important than profits.
DRM out to be outlawed. Using DRM is proof of mens rea to commit fraud.
If it can't be outlawed, then it should only be allowed on Public Domains works (i.e. the publisher has to give up copyright if they're so disappointed with its protections that they prefer to rely on tech instead -- choose copyright vs DRM -- sort of like the choice between patent and trade secret).
If it can't be limited to PD, then it ought to have mandatory labeling, like cigarettes.
What EFF is asking for here, is already a huge compromise. I think they're going too far in legitimizing DRM, but I suppose if we could do this, at least, then taking additional steps against fraud can come later.
It should be like cigarettes.
WARNING. This software Contains DIGITAL RESTRICTIONS MANAGEMENT. Your Rights are RESTRICTED using this software.
It comes with NO WARRANTY. Features MAY CHANGE AT ANY TIME, WITHOUT COMPENSATION. Features may be REMOVED.
The RESTRICTIONS prevent you from SELLING this software. You do NOT OWN IT. You only LICENSE IT.
Space on YOUR computer will be used for DIGITAL RESTRICTIONS MANAGEMENT purposes. Changes to YOUR computer can DEAUTHORIZE the software which will RESTRICT you from using it.
Why should the government even allow bypassing of consumer rights under the guise of "licensing" in the first place?
I know, rhetorical question and I can get the best government I can buy when I CAN buy them, but from a naive perspective the entire concept of DRM is a slap in the face of society.
I still play the games I bought in the 90s. Some may require OS tweaking to run on modern soft/hard-ware, but I CAN try to run them. All those new games on Steam, though? If Steam servers go down for whatever reason (or Steam decides to terminate my "license" which they can at a will, according to the EULA), I lose all my "purchases." With GOG moving to Galaxy now, and their pledge of "DRM-free" becoming uncertain in the near future, there isn't really much of a choice left (Humble Bundle may do DRM-free on occasion, but they in turn make up for it by data-mining the crap out of you).
"Rent" society is not a good thing for the majority involved in it, and especially not in a society that already has issues with wealth distribution. Meanwhile we are constantly being conditioned to accept it as the norm.
You are obligated to re-number it? Perhaps you meant remunerate.
The current near-perpetual extensions of copyright isn't 'kicking the can for future generations'. It's granting virtually eternal copyright by redefining 'lifetime' in corporate terms.
In the U.S. copyright statute, the effective lifetime of a corporation is 25 years after a work is first published.
Prior to the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, the numbers were different (50, 75, and 100 respectively), but the difference was the same.
I want DRM'd money to spend on DRM products.
That already exists. Credit card payments are subject to chargeback, and PayPal payments are subject to PayPal's purchase protection policy. Both give the buyer several months to report a seller who refuses to correct issues with a product that is not as described.
You shouldn't. That way we can point and laugh at you when some company sells you something that doesn't work and points to the fine print that they don't allow returns.
For the non-sociopaths among us, knowing that our software will be disabled if we install certain programs or if we buy a new computer or so on is a good thing to know before plopping down the money for software with a time bomb strapped to it and the belief we're actually engaging in a purchase instead of a license with arbitrary terms that aren't understandable without a lawyer and unavailable prior to paying for the license even if we had a lawyer on hand to read them.
Of course, it could be argued that the content is physically stored on the physical disk.
This in fact is the view that the U.S. copyright statute takes: a "copy" or "phonorecord" is defined as a physical object in which a work of authorship is fixed.
The difference is that M comes before N in one and after in the other. "Renumeration" is N-M, as in "NuMber". "Remuneration" is M-N, as in "MoNey".
Didn't you read and click 'Accept' on that license and terms of use agreement when you started your John Deere this morning?
Have gnu, will travel.
You do realize that at least in the U.S. once you reach the end of your contract period (or, for prepaid services, after certain other conditions are met) the carrier is required to unlock the phone at your request.
An "unlocked" Verizon phone is allowed on a GSM network. It most certainly maintains a locked bootloader (and the stable of unwanted applications [NFL tracking being the most annoying]). All this bloat updates in Google play and otherwise uses up data unless they are explicitly disabled in a swindle to inflate your data usage.
Attempts to unlock the bootloader with the OEM (HTC, Motorola, etc.) are all met with the reply "this device is not eligible for bootloader unlock."
For unsupported phones, Verizon should be compelled to allow this activity. This is perfidious intransigence for profit and control.
I really hope this gets some serious traction. The only way manufacturers will stop their blatant abuse is if they have to admit to it up front, so customers can be informed enough to vote with their wallets.
This is all part of a much more general issue: restriction and even legal prosecution of "pre-crime activities".
- You get DRM-encumbered products, because manufacturers are afraid you might copy the product. Copying is an action that has many uses; piracy is only one of many possibilities.
- The DMCA prohibits circumvention of protective measures, because...why? The circumvention isn't the problem, nor are most of the reasons you might circumvent something. It's all about the relatively rare edge cases that might be illegal. Consider hacking into your car's computer, for example: there are lots of reasons to do this, from curiousity to performing minor repairs yourself.
This mentality goes a lot farther than media and computers:
- Consider sexting: Why, exactly, is it illegal to send sexy pictures of a 17 year old?. Doing so may be naive, and there are potential crimes, but the vast majority of cases are boyfriend/girlfriend exchanges. Again: it's the crimes that should be prohibited, not the behavior that might lead to them.
Once you start looking:
- Why should it be illegal to fly drones near a wildfire? Interfering with firefighting efforts is the problem, but if there are no aircraft involved, where's the problem?
- Why should it be illegal to modify your router, as long as you don't cause interference with other devices?
- Why should it be illegal to do drugs, as long as you only affect yourself?
- Why should it be illegal to host a poker tournament in your home?
- Why should it be illegal to drive without wearing your seatbelt?
- Why should there be a minimum drinking age?
Not too long ago, I came home from work, grabbed a beer, and took a lazy evening's walk through the woods near my house. In the US, that would be illegal, because...why, exactly?
And on, and on...law after law that isn't about restricting actual harmful behavior, but rather restricting innocent activities that have the merest potential for harm.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
> You do realize that at least in the U.S. once you reach the end of your
> contract period (or, for prepaid services, after certain other conditions
> are met) the carrier is required to unlock the phone at your request.
Unlock == allow the phone to be transferred to another (compatable) carrier's network, and subscribe to phone/data service from that other carrier
Root == take full control of your phone, allowing you to remove bundled crapware, or even install an alternate OS like Cyanogen Mod.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
This product is restricted as follows:
* It can only be viewed on the following type of device: Foomatic 1000 series.
* If your Foomatic 1000 series device fails, the license can be transferred to another Foomatic 1000 series device. This process may be repeated up to 6 times only.
* Foomatic Inc does not warrant the continued availability of Foomatic 1000 series devices, or that future Foomatic series 1000 devices will be able to display the product.
* Foomatic Inc may transmit updated software to your Foomatic 1000 series device. Foomatic Inc does not warrant that such updated software will be able to display the product.
* Your Foomatic 1000 series device must have access to the foomatic.com authorization servers via the Internet whenever you view the product. If you do not have Internet access then you will not be able to view the product.
* Foomatic Inc reserves the right to cease operating its authorization servers at any time. If this occurs then the product will become unusable.
site now. Nice one FBI sSashdot. Nobody can tell either.
If I purchase some media, and it's not the usual sort of first-sale doctrine that you'd expect from a book purchase, then it needs to be clearly labeled. If there is DRM in place that prevents you from transferring ownership, that needs to be made abundantly clear before purchase.
A CD that I can buy for $12, and sell back to a used CD shop for $3 is potentially a better deal than a cloud-only music purchase of the same album for $10. To accurately compare the two purchases, we need to know what we're agreeing to before hand.
Sadly, I doubt any modern judge in the US would rule in favor of a consumer who failed to completely understand the 30 page EULA he was given.
I recommend when Caveat Emptor (buyer beware) was usually said with a hint of irony.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
My family moved to Canada last year. Apple has made it impossible to use any combination of US credit card with Canadian mailing address or to use a Canadian Credit Card to pay for a US based iTunes account. Unless you can have your credit card bill go to a US address they force you to switch your account to a Canadian one. What they don't warn you about is that most of the movies you "owned" on iTunes will vanish when you make that change. While I understand they have different distribution deals and rights in different countries, the hundreds of older physical DVDs did not suffer this issue crossing the border. Not only do you not own your movies, your license to view them has many restrictions including specific geography of where the license can be used.
If I decide to move back to the US and switch it back to a US iTunes account will my movies re-appear? Somehow I doubt it.
This is an especially important topic given that new technology like Intel's SGX processors stand to allow 'uncrackable' DRM. Current DRM is like hide and go seek: parts of the software are encrypted on the disk and the decryption routine is obfuscated and hidden in the binary to make it as difficult as possible for people to intercept the key and copy it. However up until now, at the end of the day there has to be an encryption key somewhere that decrypts the software to run on your machine.
SGX, on the other hand, allows encrypted code to run in a hidden 'enclave' on your processor that cannot be observed even by the operating system. The key can never be observed in the clear, unless the physical protections imposed by Intel are circumvented. That is not to say that there won't be some vulnerability or exploit against SGX that might let people break into it, but for the first time there will be the possibility of theoretically uncrackable DRM.
May I suggest the solution we have in New Zealand?
If the DRM prevents you from doing something that would otherwise be non-infringing, then that DRM is no longer legally protected: you're allowed to hack it just as hard as you like.
Humble Bundle?
The same champions for DRM-Free games who now have more DRM-bundles than non-DRM-bundles?
The same champions for DRM-Free games who have many DRM-encumbered versions of games which GOG has without DRM?
The same champions for DRM-Free games whose new slogan is "We only stock what the publishers give us"?
Copyright duration
In the United States a "work for hire" (published after 1978) receives copyright protection until 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever comes first. This differs from the standard U.S. copyright term, life of the author plus 70 years, because the "author" of a work for hire is often not an actual person, in which case the standard term would be unlimited, which is unconstitutional.[9] Works published prior to 1978 have no differentiation in copyright term between works made for hire and works with recognized individual creators.
And if you are already breaking one law for good, even necessary, reasons what is breaking another law?
Bad laws are harmful to all laws.
I really wished I was warned or foreseen that when I spent extra money to buy a PS3 with a bigger hard drive and a keyboard that shortly after my purchase that a firmware upgrade would take away the ability to run another OS meaning I wasted money on the extra hard drive space and a keyboard. Once this update was downloaded, it wasn't like I could turn around and uninstall it if I didn't agree with the changes to the EULA or their decision to take away the ability to run another OS. Some printer manufacturers have offered firmware updates that prevents the use of ink cartridges made by third parties locking you into their more expensive ink cartridges. Consumers should have the right to know what types of DRM are being used such as a product cannot be used if you don't have an internet connection and there should be the ability to modify the EULA after purchase or eliminate features that a consumer originally had at the time of purchase. Consumers should also have the ability to uninstall any upgrades in the event the EULA changes to something they disagree on or a firmware upgrade eliminates some feature that was available at the time of purchase.