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.

69 of 122 comments (clear)

  1. classy actions by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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,

    1. Re:classy actions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:classy actions by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      ... and tortutious interference,

      "You're honor, their DRM is interfering with my torture."

      "You're honor that can't be right, DRM is torture!"

      "Agreed, case dismissed."

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    3. Re:classy actions by mindwhip · · Score: 3, Informative

      Vacations are (mostly) for enjoying yourself.

      Some people go skiing, some people go mountain climbing, some people go bake their brains on a beach, some go and stare at 'art' (classic and modern) all day, some play computer games.

      Who are you to judge how someone spends their time away from work?

      --
      [The Universe] has gone offline.
    4. Re:classy actions by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      These are called "incidental losses", losses you incur because the product is defective or unfit for purpose. The EULA usually says you can't claim them, but such clauses are illegal in many countries (including the UK) where the law very clearly says that you can.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:classy actions by ewibble · · Score: 1

      Clauses that cannot be enforced should be illegal, and punishable by law. They serve give the impression that you have less rights than you have. Most people are not lawyers, so even if they read the agreement it cannot reasonably be assumed they know which clause are not applicable. It is not reasonable that consumers seek legal advice before purchasing a DVD or a video game.

  2. Misleading? by RabidReindeer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Own it (snicker) on DVD!"

    1. Re:Misleading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      "License it for viewing, in our licensed player, by yourself, and only yourself, on DVD today, for very small values of today, and only if you're in a country we like!", doesn't really have the same ring to it.

    2. Re:Misleading? by mrvan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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)

    3. Re:Misleading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Own it (snicker) on DVD!"

      Take a photo. Document the purchase.
      Then hit them with a DMCA notification together with the proof of you being the owner.
      Then sue them for fraud when they say that you aren't the owner.
      Probably no profit since only large companies are allowed to do bullshit like that.

    4. Re:Misleading? by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      By defining "own" a thing that doesn't exist, you reduced the expressive power of language. That has negative utility.

      In other words: even if you're right, that's a totally fuckwitted thing to do.

      "Own" has meaning that is independent of whether or not you having permanently secured the asset from all possible attacks.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    5. Re:Misleading? by Rhipf · · Score: 1

      Not all countries have eminent domain laws.

    6. Re:Misleading? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

      Libertarianism isn't anarchy, but they have this delusion that if there were no government, everybody would just get along and be happy and nobody would ever form a powerful gang and begin stealing from others... warlords don't exist to them... and they have no idea how dictatorships come about.

      You REALLY are unaware of Libertarian ideas if you believe that.

      Libertarians are under the delusion that an armed population, with a substantial fraction of them willing to shoot a bully or (in the case of a gang attack) take as many as possible down before one of them gets them, tends to make bullies and gangsters back down, or at least go find somebody who isn't alert enough to get his gun out in time.

      Funny thing is, criminological research seems to agree with them - in spades.

      You can stop a sword with a bigger sword (wielded by a sufficiently skilled swordsman), a club with a bigger club ditto, or a group of thugs with a bigger group of thugs. But (as McClary said): "You can't stop a bullet with a bigger bullet." That's why they called a gun "the great equalizer". And it's why governments working on becoming tyrannies are always trying to disarm their citizens.

      Libertarians would like to reduce government. But they'd prefer to do so by legal means if possible. Getting from what we have now to minarchy OR anarchy would be easier if the US government were peacefully reduced to what its Constitution claims it should be.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    7. Re:Misleading? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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!

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    8. Re:Misleading? by sconeu · · Score: 1

      I'd love to see someone sue for false advertising on that.

      How big would their sales be if they read "LICENSE IT (for limited purposes) ON DVD TODAY!!!"

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    9. Re:Misleading? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Makes for a good jingle though.

    10. Re:Misleading? by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Libertarians are under the delusion that an armed population, with a substantial fraction of them willing to shoot a bully or (in the case of a gang attack) take as many as possible down before one of them gets them, tends to make bullies and gangsters back down, or at least go find somebody who isn't alert enough to get his gun out in time.

      The irony of that statement is that there's a technical term for a self-organized group of people working at a common cause for the (alleged) benefit of all. That term is "government".

      The problem with Libertarianism is that inside every small government, there's a big government trying to get out.

    11. Re:Misleading? by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Libertarians are under the delusion that an armed population, with a substantial fraction of them willing to shoot a bully or (in the case of a gang attack) take as many as possible down before one of them gets them, tends to make bullies and gangsters back down, or at least go find somebody who isn't alert enough to get his gun out in time.

      The irony of that statement is that there's a technical term for a self-organized group of people working at a common cause for the (alleged) benefit of all. That term is "government".

      The problem with Libertarianism is that inside every small government, there's a big government trying to get out.

      That and that for every beneign government you get 10 dictators and warlords + thousands of dead.

    12. Re:Misleading? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      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 :).

      I'm pretty sure own doesn't mean what you think it does either.

      Own implies permanency, a once off payment for a non-limited time. For limited use or possession we have specific words for them like "lease", "rent" or "hire".

      A car is a prime example, when I lease a car I gain exclusive access to that car for a limited time as defined by the lease. When I own a car, I have that car for as long as I want to own it for.

      For the ownership of my car to be revoked, circumstances need to be exceptional. BMW cant simply pop up at my house in a year or so and say "that 2 series you gave us 40,000 quid for, well we're just going to take it back" like so-called "content owners" do.

      Not sure about the Netherlands but in most countries to own something puts it beyond the control of the sellers after the sale is completed and this is enforced by the courts with the utmost seriousness.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    13. Re:Misleading? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      In the US, DVDs and Blu-Ray disks often have FBI warnings about piracy, which are displayed if and only if the disk is legitimate, since anyone ripping it and distributing unlicensed copies will remove the crap before the content.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    14. Re:Misleading? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Which is why we try very hard to get benign governments. That's far more important than limiting the power of the government.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  3. Relief for when a company goes out of business by El+Cubano · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Relief for when a company goes out of business by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      The perversion of copyright needs to be fixed properly instead of leaving it as a battle for future generations.

      While I completely agree with everything you stated in your post, your last sentence makes me chuckle. Even though I agree with it as well. But is there anything that the US government doesn't kick the can for future generations to have to worry about? For the most part, very few things get resolved these days before they become a major crisis. Social Security has been within 20 year of bankruptcy for decades. It keeps getting band-aid fixes and was getting a lot of lip service for a while. Heath care reform has been a pretty big issue since the 1970's. The Affordable Health Care Act was touted as a fix. But as it stands it's kicking the can, just not quite as far down the road. Al Qaeda was a known problem for many years, yet no one in the US really gave it much thought until 2001. DRM is, unfortunately, too far down on the list for most people to even be aware of it. To make matters worse, the companies who use it have paid all of the right people to make sure it doesn't go away. In fact they managed to get, what should be civil cases, something that the FBI actively investigates and people get criminally prosecuted for.

    2. Re:Relief for when a company goes out of business by rickb928 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    3. Re:Relief for when a company goes out of business by swb · · Score: 2

      I think we're largely setup for perpetual copyright anymore now that so much of the economy is based on intellectual property and it can be duplicated so easily.

      I think IP owners like DRM at least as much for its eventual obsolescence as for its resistance to casual copying. They know that they can comfortably license content with DRM knowing that the distributor and/or their DRM regime will eventually go out of business or become obsolete and that all they have to do is re-license it to the next distributor and sell the same product again.

      What bothers me is how easy it is to buy a "perpetual use" license only to have perpetual be tied to the distributor's DRM system. That's not honest.

    4. Re:Relief for when a company goes out of business by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      The entire reason for DRM is an attempt to prop up a business model that makes absolutely no sense. Producing a creative work is hard. Copying a creative work is trivial. We've created entire industries around the idea of creating works for free and then charging people for copies of them. That sort-of worked back when copying was difficult (when a printing press was hugely expensive and before that when books had to be copied by hand) but it's been increasingly difficult to make work. The correct solution to the problem is to move the payment to the difficult bit of the process, not to try to make the easy bit difficult.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:Relief for when a company goes out of business by chihowa · · Score: 1

      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.

      The latter problem is intimately related to, and follows from, the former (and similarly broken laws). Fixing copyright law will actually help to fix the open disdain for law in general.

      To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.

      Elizabeth Cady Stanton

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  4. DRM Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  5. Not going to work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    .... 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

    1. Re:Not going to work... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      beyond the lifetime of the game (5-10 years)

      I've owned games longer than 5 years that I've never played - I'll eventually catch up. There is at least one game that is almost 20 years old that I intend to play but haven't. Unfortunately, there's still no way to give the publisher any money for that game, because the current rights-holder refuses to sell it and it's been out of print for at least 15 years. In fact, the game (The Neverhood) was a commercial failure, and they probably still haven't made back their investment. But I didn't have the money then to pay for it - I was in high school with no job.

      I agree that the cultural value of the game is high - in fact, support was added for it in ScummVM in 2014. But I'm not sure that poor marketing and reception at a time should bar them from ever making their money back. Look at the show Firefly - I didn't watch it until over a decade after it was produced. It would have never made money if not for people slowly catching on over the years.

    2. Re:Not going to work... by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      As you point out however, there is often no way to pay for a piece of media after a few years anyway so even if you want to pay for it you can't...
      So the only legal way for you to acquire that 20 year old game is to wait another 70 years or more and then hope that a copy still exists anywhere, on media thats still readable, and any hardware still exists thats capable of playing it.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    3. Re:Not going to work... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      So the only legal way for you to acquire that 20 year old game is to wait another 70 years or more

      No - resale is perfectly legal. And I can find it used for ~$38. However, I already have a large backlog of games to play. I'm waiting out to see if GoG gets rights to it and can release it. Even if the original artists don't get compensated this way, at least the rights-holder gets the message that this is a game people will still pay for (there is a nearly 7,000 strong wishlist vote on GoG now).

      The Neverhood doesn't even run correctly on XP, since it requires 8-bit color and palette changes and is not very compatible. There are two ways to play it on modern systems - The Neverhood Restoration Project and ScummVM.

    4. Re:Not going to work... by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      So the only legal way for you to acquire that 20 year old game is to wait another 70 years or more

      No - resale is perfectly legal.

      That would imply that someone else has to give up their own copy so that you can have the ability to play it. That is an unreasonable restriction when digital copies are trivial to make and no one could possibly claim to be harmed by the existence of additional copies of an out-of-print game.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    5. Re:Not going to work... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      That is an unreasonable restriction when digital copies are trivial to make and no one could possibly claim to be harmed by the existence of additional copies of an out-of-print game.

      There's been a bit of a renaissance of out of print games coming back from beyond. The harm is that you would prevent it from being made available again at all.

  6. I used to have a license for Beyond Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Then they patched in "telemetry" that required a new EULA consent form. They stole the game from me with an update.

  7. "Content Creators" ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. I wouldn't have minded this by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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/
  9. Digital Restrictions Malware by JRV31 · · Score: 1

    We need to stop using the acronym DRM, call it what it is, Digital Restrictions Malware.

  10. Truth in labelling? by mark-t · · Score: 2

    "This work contains technological protection measures that may interfere with fair use".

    1. Re:Truth in labelling? by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

      "This work contains technological protection measures that may interfere with fair use".

      Short, sweet and to the point. I like it!

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
  11. "Requires Uplay" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I may use Steam unironically, but I draw the line at having to sign up for DRM that sits on top of DRM.

  12. Re:Desirable conduct? by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

    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
  13. Re:"Buy" It Today! by omnichad · · Score: 1

    "Buy the [physical media]" would be almost OK compared to "Own it today on DVD" which actually implies you get some rights.

  14. Re:Brilliant by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

    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

    After Sony removed the "Other OS" functionality for the PS3 how many PS3 and PS4's have they sold? I'm pretty sure it's more than none.

  15. Verizon Wireless should merit special attention. by emil · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  16. This is already a huge compromise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:This is already a huge compromise by tepples · · Score: 1

      sort of like the choice between patent and trade secret

      Some aspects of a single product are patented; other aspects are trade secrets. For example, MPEG-4 AVC in general is patented, but specific techniques used to improve encoding quality or decoding efficiency are trade secrets.

  17. Goverments should not allow it in the first place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

  18. Re:"...requires renumeration..." by mrvan · · Score: 1

    Sorry, not a native speaker... but isn't renumeration simply the nominalization of renumerate?

  19. Life of a corporation is 25 years by tepples · · Score: 1

    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.

    • Copyright in a work of individual authorship subsists until 70 years after the end of the calendar year in which the last surviving author dies.
    • Copyright in a work published before 1978 or a work made for hire subsists until 95 years after the end of the calendar year of first publication (or for 120 years after the end of the calendar year of creation if not published within 25 years).

    Prior to the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, the numbers were different (50, 75, and 100 respectively), but the difference was the same.

    1. Re:Life of a corporation is 25 years by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      And if the property is sold to a subsidiary?

      Let's not study the usual solution for corporations of making the most minimal modification and claiming a new copyright, which is surely not supposed to happen, but the government can hardly keep up, and will grant despite no significant change.

      It's a racket. All I can ask is that it be reasonable, and for a corporation 'reasonable' isn't anything like what I would like it to be. 'Fair' no longer seems to be a concept in law.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    2. Re:Life of a corporation is 25 years by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      I think you are misunderstanding. If a corporation is the author of the work, the term is a flat, fixed 25 years from date of first publishing. No trickery works to extend that. Selling it, or the rights, to a different corporation does not change the first date of publication.

      But, of course no works are authored by corporations. Instead, corporations pay people to author things and transfer copyright rights to the corporation. That means that the individual terms apply to the work.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    3. Re:Life of a corporation is 25 years by tepples · · Score: 1

      But, of course no works are authored by corporations.

      A corporation is considered the author of "a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment" (17 USC 101). This "scope of his or her employment" is for the courts to decide based on several factors, though the statute does list situations in which works commissioned by the client of a contractor are deemed made for hire: "as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire." For most works of authorship intended for publication, "other audiovisual work" is a big enough loophole to drive a lane-straddling bus through, as a work often forms part of a promotional video.

      Instead, corporations pay people to author things and transfer copyright rights to the corporation. That means that the individual terms apply to the work.

      This called an "assignment", and you are correct that an assignment does not change the term. A work made for hire assigned to another publisher retains the term for a work made for hire, and an individual work retains the term for an individual work. Thus a single derivative or collective work may contain elements used under "work made for hire", assignment, exclusive license, or nonexclusive license. This makes the overall copyright term often impractical to calculate, especially near expiry a century later once records of authorship have been lost.

  20. Chargebacks by tepples · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Chargebacks by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Both give the buyer several months to report a seller who refuses to correct issues with a product that is not as described.

      Several months? In order to be useful, the right needs to last for life + 70 years.

  21. Copy = physical object in which a work is fixed by tepples · · Score: 1

    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.

  22. N before M except when it's cash by tepples · · Score: 1

    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".

    1. Re:N before M except when it's cash by mrvan · · Score: 1

      Heh, thanks, I guess it makes sense if it has the same root as money...

  23. Re:"...requires renumeration..." by Muros · · Score: 1

    Sorry, not a native speaker... but isn't renumeration simply the nominalization of renumerate?

    He was pointing out that renumerate and remunerate are two different words. Renumerate means to re-assign numerical labels. Remunerate means to provide compensation.

  24. What's the matter? by PPH · · Score: 1

    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.
  25. unlock: GSM versus bootloader by emil · · Score: 1

    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.

  26. Awesome. by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    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.

  27. More general issue: pre-crime by bradley13 · · Score: 1

    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.
    1. Re:More general issue: pre-crime by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If you're driving, and you don't wear a seat belt, you're more likely to lose control of your vehicle in a minor accident. I approve of laws that aren't onerous and increase the safety of one-ton-plus objects moving at over 10 m/s.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  28. Unlock != Root by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

    > 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
  29. DRM as a contract by OrangeTide · · Score: 2

    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
  30. Re:"...requires renumeration..." by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

    It's an easy thing to confuse. After all, we do count money!

    Now if the numbers weren't all so darned small.

    Except for the payables, of course.

  31. Uncrackable DRM by cryptizard · · Score: 1

    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.

  32. How about warning that terms of EULA can change... by anti-disney · · Score: 1

    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.