Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DRM is Used to Lock in, Control and Spy on Users, Says Free Software Foundation (torrentfreak.com)

Posted by msmash on from the enough? dept.

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.

40 of 72 comments (clear)

  1. Well, yeah by stealth_finger · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's what it's for.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    1. Re:Well, yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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".

    2. Re: Well, yeah by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Just what passes for news these days w/ msmash. Had she looked, she'd have found this on the GNU website from years ago

    3. Re: Well, yeah by sconeu · · Score: 3, Funny

      Which makes it about the right timeline for the Slashdot front page...

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    4. Re:Well, yeah by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
    5. Re: Well, yeah by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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

    6. Re:Well, yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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'd argue it is even worse than that.

      Speaking specifically about US copyright law, there has been much argument over what the "for a limited time" clause in the constitution actually means.
      There seems to only be two facts that are pretty much universally agreed upon:

      A) Limited does not mean unlimited or infinite, and
      B) The unit of measurement of "year(s)" seems acceptable to use.

      The point "A" leaves much wiggle room for congress, and even on a technical level could be anything in the range between (1) and (infinity-1), and in fact is where our current minimal 180 year copyright terms stem from.
      You'll find plenty of people of the opinion it should be shorter, and even those like Disney who are of the opinion it should be longer. But all agree it must fall within the range above.

      DRM by its nature is capable and intended to protect a work indefinitely. Aka an unlimited amount of time.

      So one really needs to ask, under what rule of law is the US government permitted to grant copyright protection to a work for an unlimited amount of time, when they are quite specifically constitutionally prevented from doing so?

      A work of "art" however you define that without DRM protection, can at least have protection under the law dictating some of its usages.
      A work protected by DRM however doesn't appear to even have any protection under copyright law.

      This would also seem to be counter to the DMCAs anti-circumvention clauses, since those only apply to copyrighted works, which no DRMed work could legally qualify as in the first place.

    7. Re: Well, yeah by jenningsthecat · · Score: 2

      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.

      This is precisely why the EFF is wasting its breath. Most 'government folks' have no problem with the idea of "controlling users", "spying on users", and "creating lock-in". The EFF's target audience here doesn't know, doesn't want to know, and doesn't care.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    8. Re:Well, yeah by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      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".

      Um, every artificial ingredient improves something for you -- whether price, shelf life, flavor, health, nutrition, or something else. Like all things it is a trade-off, in this case one people overwhelmingly choose, but not necessarily a good one (for your measure of good). As a single example, the artificial ingredient "heat" has been used to sanitize and preserve food, while also increasing its flavor and nutritional value -- but when overdone can destroy nutrients and create carcinogens. And while your average person would balk at "artificially heat-denatured proteins", they do prefer to have their food "cooked".

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  2. You can't spell "DRM" without the "D" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Guess which party the "content providers" pushing for DRM have bought?

    Yeah, it starts with a D.

  3. FSF being FSF by fbobraga · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And I'm very glad it occurs!

    1. Re:FSF being FSF by fbobraga · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is FSF anything more than RMS?

      yeap, is much more... *I thank him to has started/organized the movement, but nowadays I think, many times (but not every time), that hi is bad to the entire movement (by encouraging comments like yours to exist...)

    2. Re:FSF being FSF by pnutjam · · Score: 2

      FSF helped me out with a problem I'm having in my school district. They mandate Apple ID's, but don't participate in the program to create Apple ID's for kids. You can only create "under 13" apple ID's if you have existing apple infrastructure. Apple makes it a pain in the ass at every corner and doesn't support PC's or android.

      --
      Cheap storage VM.
    3. Re:FSF being FSF by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Such as? Eben Moglen is just his lawyer

    4. Re:FSF being FSF by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      You don't know FSF very well, do you?

  4. Duh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...also in the news, Guns are used to shoot.

  5. No shit. Has Captain Obvious taken over the FSF??? by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    Errrm, ... and this is news why exactly?

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  6. Up-front crowdfunding by tepples · · Score: 2

    Crowdfunding is "also used to try and ensure that people get paid for the work they do writing software, making movies and other media." This was first envisioned in 1999 by Kelsey and Schneier as the street performer protocol and later implemented in platforms such as Kickstarter.

  7. Re:What... are you just figuring this out NOW? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    no duh

    People need to keep saying it and hearing it, though. There should have been a bunch of ads over the last week, where congressional candidates said, "I'm going to try to repeal 1201 and my opponent isn't going to try to do that." But that didn't happen. Until that happens, we are in failure.

    Also, this is an issue where the passage of time, itself, is proving the point. 15 years ago even here on Slashdot, though it was already unpopular, DRM had its sincere defenders (people who wanted copyright to work, and thought DRM was compatible with their aims). Now everyone has seen enough: if someone speaks out for DRM, you know they're lying about something. Either they're anti-copyright (they're trying to promote piracy, since DRM has been a great force in habitualizing people to pirating) or they're selling snake oil to unsuspecting newbie schmucks in the media business.

    Keep telling people. Keep looking for ways to explain it to laymen. Keep showing the costs.

  8. FSF had to hand-deliver its comment by tepples · · Score: 4, Informative

    The news is that the FSF's opinion has been included in the comments published by the United States Copyright Office from its public consultation about this issue. There was uncertainty as to whether the Copyright Office would accept FSF's submission, as electronic submission required use of proprietary software written in JavaScript, and there was no option for postal submission. So FSF had to hand-deliver its comments to the Copyright Office in Washington, DC, in person.

    1. Re:FSF had to hand-deliver its comment by unixisc · · Score: 1

      So the US Copyright Office is happy to just hear from RMS, who's ever too ready to weigh in on anything?

  9. FSF against DRM? by Nemyst · · Score: 1

    Say it isn't so!

    1. Re:FSF against DRM? by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

      Say it isn't so!

      Have you been living under a rock? It is "Say it ain't so!"

  10. Re:Water still wet, news at 11. by spire3661 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  11. Then what would replace rental? by tepples · · Score: 1

    FSF divides works of authorship into computer programs, instructional works, works of opinion, and artistic works. Each brings separate licensing issues, as described on the GNU project's list of licenses and comments on the loaded word "consume". FSF ethics do not require works of opinion or artistic works to be free.

    Other than digital restrictions management, what's the FSF-approved way for the publisher of an artistic work to offer a service consisting of a time-limited license for a subscriber to experience that work? Is the alternative really to drop rental altogether in favor of selling a durable copy of something that most people are likely to watch only once?

    1. Re:Then what would replace rental? by swb · · Score: 2

      Other than digital restrictions management, what's the FSF-approved way for the publisher of an artistic work to offer a service consisting of a time-limited license for a subscriber to experience that work? Is the alternative really to drop rental altogether in favor of selling a durable copy of something that most people are likely to watch only once?

      If they are only going to consume the content once, why not distribute a durable copy? Does rental exist because people only want to consume once, or do people only consume once because they have to pay per consumption?

      I'll bet video rental wouldn't have existed at all if videotaped movies didn't cost $75 back in the VHS heyday, a price certainly inflated by the movie studios who believed it would undermine cinema viewership.

    2. Re:Then what would replace rental? by tepples · · Score: 1

      What is being "consumed", in the sense of being used up? And is an artistic work just "content" to fill a box?

      To answer your questions: It's to price-discriminate between one set of viewers, who wish to view the work once, and a different set of viewers, who wish to view it repeatedly.

      And to answer your last paragraph: There was also video game rental in the 1980s, which brought playing a game at home for short period within the same order of magnitude as the price of playing a few rounds at an arcade back when arcades were still popular. And unlike the sell-through price of movies, the sell-through price of video games wasn't quite so "inflated" because cartridges legitimately cost that much for a video game publisher to have manufactured (with the exception of the CIC key, but that's a different topic from rental).

    3. Re:Then what would replace rental? by tepples · · Score: 1

      All that matters is author attribution, payment and the fact that content can and will be copied freely.

      Then how should the amount of said payment be determined? The traditional copyright model makes payment proportional to the number of copies sold, on the assumption that the value added by an author through the creation of a work is proportional to the number of viewers that the work reaches.

    4. Re:Then what would replace rental? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Other than digital restrictions management, what's the FSF-approved way for the publisher of an artistic work to offer a service consisting of a time-limited license for a subscriber to experience that work? Is the alternative really to drop rental altogether in favor of selling a durable copy of something that most people are likely to watch only once?

      Easy. You buy it for full price. Then resell it to someone else who wants to see it for less money, and so on and so on. This is the FSF way (Remember, reselling is a right).

      Of course, it assumes everyone is willing to do this, and that there are people who are willing to go through the effort and expense to resell it and then ship it/deliver it to the buyer.

      Using DRM to make it so 1M people can rent it without having to find 1M people to buy it afterwards is considered evil.

  12. Re:BINGO by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The only lock down on a cell phone should be on the sim with no locked boot loaders or network lock in.

  13. Owner != user by tepples · · Score: 2

    In each of these cases you describe, the owner of the physical device is not its user. Respectively the owner is the company, the school, the leasing agency, or the utility.

    But in the case of home entertainment devices sold to the public, the state-law owner is the person who walks into Best Buy with cash and walks out with a device or a copy* of a work. Thus the owner is the user. Yet digital restrictions management blocks the owner from exercising what would otherwise be rights of the owner under statutory limitations of copyright. In particular, DRM abridges the rights of the owner of a copy under 17 USC 107 (fair use for transformative purposes), 17 USC 109 (exhaustion of distribution right after first sale of a copy), 17 USC 117 (making copies or adaptations needed to use a computer program with a particular computer system), and foreign counterparts.

    * The law defines "copy" as a physical medium, such as an optical disc, memory card, or hard drive, on which a work is recorded.

  14. Clinton is against the TPP by tepples · · Score: 1

    Dibertarian?

    Because the Ls are the biggest U.S. party whose candidate for President has recently expressed support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Trump is against it, and Clinton became against it once the final version was released, but Johnson is all for it.

    1. Re:Clinton is against the TPP by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Clinton became against it when she saw that on both sides, both Trump and Sanders were wildly popular due to their opposition of it. Even Pocahontas became pretty popular for opposing it.

  15. Re:DRM Data Collection Servers by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Or a DDoS. They're kinda popular these days.

    That way the whole IoT idiocy would at least finally has a use.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  16. Re:Water still wet, news at 11. by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  17. Re:Election Day Haiku by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Darmark and Jalad
    On the ocean, tenagra
    Temba his arms wide.

  18. Original Source? by hackel · · Score: 1

    Why am I having to read a TorrentFreak article on this? Why is there no mention of it on either http://www.fsf.org/ nor http://defectivebydesign.org/? I don't want to link to TorrentFreak when I share this, nor do I want to link to an obscure PDF file for the original source. It really seems like they should be promoting this on their own site!

  19. Wow, really? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    "DRM is Used to Lock in, Control and Spy on Users, Says Free Software Foundation"

    No shit, Einstein.

    Who was the super-genius that puzzled this out?

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  20. rights/restrictions by someoneOtherThanMe · · Score: 1

    Why "restrictions management"? Digital rights management is perfectly appropriate, where "to manage something" means "to lessen something, or the effects of something". See weight management, anger management, crisis management...

  21. curso NR 10 by Instituto+Santa+Cata · · Score: 1

    Curso NR 10 online curso NR 10 curso NR 10 online