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,

Re:classy actions

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Misleading?

[RabidReindeer]

"Own it (snicker) on DVD!"

Re:Misleading?

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

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)

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.

"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.

I wouldn't have minded this

[rsilvergun]

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.