Slashdot Mirror
DRM is Used to Lock in, Control and Spy on Users, Says Free Software Foundation (torrentfreak.com)
In a scathing critique, the Free Software Foundation is urging the U.S. Government to drop the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions which protect DRM. From a report on TorrentFreak:Late last year the U.S. Copyright office launched a series of public consultations to review critical aspects of the DMCA law. FSF sees no future for DRM and urges the Copyright Office to repeal the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions. "Technological protection measures and Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) play no legitimate role in protecting copyrighted works. Instead, they are a means of controlling users and creating 'lock in'," FSF's Donald Robertson writes. According to FSF, copyright is just an excuse, the true purpose is to lock down and control users. "Companies use this control illegitimately with an eye toward extracting maximum revenue from users in ways that have little connection to actual copyright law. In fact, these restrictions are technological impediments to the rights users have under copyright law, such as fair use." Even if copyright was the main concern, DRM would be an overbroad tool to achieve the goal, the foundation notes. FSF highlights that DRM is not just used to control people but also to spy on them, by sending all kinds of personal data to technology providers. This is done to generate extra income at the expense of users' rights, they claim. "DRM enables companies to spy on their users, and use that data for profit," Robertson adds. "DRM is frequently used to spy on users by requiring that they maintain a connection to the Internet so that the program can send information back to the DRM provider about the user's actions," he adds.
And I'm very glad it occurs!
Rule of thumb: if it doesn't clearly improve anything for you, it's for the benefit of the counterparty. A classic example is the presence of artificial ingredients in "food".
Copyright maximalism has swung so hard the only sane option is to revoke all of it. THEY scorched the Earth, not us. Copyright today is utterly broken, there is NO valid moral defense for what it has become.
Good-bye
Odd. All overboarding DRM did was make me NOT pay for software and search alternatives.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Actually, the main thing that it's for is to give control to channel owners at the expense of copyright owners. Which is weird, because the people who insist on it are copyright owners. The record labels insisted Apple include DRM on their music, so Apple ended up with complete control of digital music distribution until they allowed DRM-free music. The movie studios insisted that Netflix and Amazon include DRM in their streaming offerings. Initially that gave a lot of control to Microsoft and Adobe, who provided the DRM, now it's giving control to Netflix, Google, and Amazon (a huge number of consumer devices such as smart TVs run a Netflix, YouTube, or Amazon video app - if you won't sell your content DRM free, then you can't reach these people unless you go through one of these companies).
Eventually people will learn that not only doesn't DRM reduce piracy (it pisses off legitimate customers and it only takes one person to break the DRM and the DRM-free version can be infinitely pirated), but it also doesn't give any control to the people who insist on it.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
File this under "know your audience:" the EFF is writing for the likes of "series of tubes" senators (and other tech-illiterate government folks), not slashdotters.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz