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.

Comments

classy actions

[harvey the nerd]

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,

Misleading?

[RabidReindeer]

"Own it (snicker) on DVD!"

Re:Misleading?

[mrvan]

I don't think "own" means what you think it means :-). If there were no government, you would "own" something until someone with a bigger club comes around. If there is a government obeying the rule of law, you "own" something until your ownership is removed by due legal process. Expropriation is limited in scope and requires renumeration (U.S.C. 5th amendment: "Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."), so ownership is more than a temporary lease, but it is certainly no unlimited perpetual right. Hint: there's not an awful lot of those :).

In Dutch law, ownership is defined as the maximal rights that one can enjoy on a good. Not "full" or "unrestricted" rights, but "maximal".

(and yes, if you start breaking the law, either by refusing to pay taxes or in some other way, you will find that a lot of your rights are quite relative, including ownership, freedom of movement and ultimately freedom from physical abuse)

Re:Misleading?

[TheRaven64]

I recently bought the boxed set of Stargate SG-1. Everything was fine until I got to Season 6, which had some copy protection that meant that about 4 minutes into each episode it would jump back to the menu. I found a bunch of documentation about the company responsible and their approach works by putting out-of-range indexes into some of the header fields in the stream. Most players simply ignore these values, but it crashed mine. I'd be very happy if almost-DVD-but-violates-the-spec-and-may-randomly-break-because-we-hate-paying-customers disks had to be labelled differently to DVDs.

Oh, and the worst part about this: the only way that I could watch Season 6 was to rip the DVDs. Great job with 'copy protection' guys!

Relief for when a company goes out of business

[El Cubano]

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.

Re:Relief for when a company goes out of business

[rickb928]

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.

And corporations have an unlimited lifetime. Yes, they do:

- If successful, they persist forever.

- If failed, they sell their property to another.

- If the purchaser fails, they repeat. Ad Infinitum.

Perhaps corporate copyright should be limited to the initial originator or purchaser, and any transfers then be limited to reasonable terms. 7-20 years. No extensions. Further sales inherit the limit.

But copyright is so broken it's criminal. Despite the problems, we have greater problems in American to solve, such as the open disdain for and circumvention of law at all levels, in every area.

"Content Creators" ???

[Anonymous Coward]

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.