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.

19 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 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.
    3. 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
  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 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
    4. 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
  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 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.
    2. 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.

    3. 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
  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. "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.

  6. 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/
  7. Truth in labelling? by mark-t · · Score: 2

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

  8. 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.

  9. 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