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.
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.
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/
How about making post-sale non-negotiable contract changes illegal?
And no, it is not as simple as me just getting a refund if I deny the new EULA.
I know cases where people buy new hardware of even take vacation time to play a game. If the game then is updated post-sale with a license that the person don't want to accept then he/she is still screwed.
The case is similar for business software. I you have built a sever farm with the intent of running a software with a known license it should not be acceptable for the software vendor to just who up with a new license.
An EULA that you have to click through to install that weren't available for reading at the store when you purchased the software should not be enforceable.
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.