Slashdot Mirror
FSF Sees Hopeful Signs Before Sunday's 'Day Against DRM' (defectivebydesign.org)
The Free Software Foundation's anti-DRM initiative "Defective By Design" argues that since last year's annual Day Against DRM, "we've seen cracks appearing in the foundation of the DRM status quo."
The companies that profit from Digital Restrictions Management are still trying to expand the system of law and technology that weakens our security and curtails our rights, in an effort to prop up their exploitative business models. But since the last International Day Against DRM, the TPP trade agreement -- a key pro-DRM initiative -- crashed and burned. And our allies at the Electronic Frontier Foundation brought major legal and regulatory challenges against DRM in Washington DC... If we play our cards right, this may be the beginning of the end of DRM.
On Sunday, July 9, 2017, we will channel this momentum into the International Day Against DRM. We'll be gathering, protesting, and making -- showing the world that we insist on a future without Digital Restrictions Management. Will you join us? Here's what you can do now:
They're asking supporters to plan a protest, translate their fliers into more languages, voice support in videos and blog posts, or make endorsements. And you can also join the "DRM Elimination crew" mailing list or their Freenode IRC channel #dbd for year-round conversation and collaboration with the anti-DRM movement -- or simply make a donation to show your support.
On Sunday, July 9, 2017, we will channel this momentum into the International Day Against DRM. We'll be gathering, protesting, and making -- showing the world that we insist on a future without Digital Restrictions Management. Will you join us? Here's what you can do now:
They're asking supporters to plan a protest, translate their fliers into more languages, voice support in videos and blog posts, or make endorsements. And you can also join the "DRM Elimination crew" mailing list or their Freenode IRC channel #dbd for year-round conversation and collaboration with the anti-DRM movement -- or simply make a donation to show your support.
It is correct though.
They use language that's intentionally deceptive to fool people and lawmakers, and the FSF just fights back.
DRM manages restrictions. So it's fine to call it that.
Whether you believe it's a misnomer or not, DRM usually refers to "digital rights management" instead of "digital restrictions management" like what's in the summary.
I would argue that it is usually meant to stand for "digital rights management" but that it does actually refer to digital restrictions management. Once it gets to the user, DRM does not manage rights; indeed, it interferes with actual rights, like fair use. That is why DRM is best referred to as "digital restrictions management".
Slashdot used to actually be a news site
You must be new here. That's never been true. Slashdot has always been a discussion site, and has never been a news site.
hence the former motto of news for nerds, stuff that matters. Now, it's run by terrible editors and spews propaganda.
You must be new here, it has always been run by terrible editors and it has always spewed propaganda. What's different today is all the apologists like you who love sucking corporate cock.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
...most people would not understand what I am talking about.
It does not matter whether it is Widevine CDM, HTML 5 standards, Trusted Computing or something else.
Most people roll their eyes, when I mention freedom, privacy, and rights in the context of electronics. They often say, "Let them track me. I am not doing anything wrong." or "I need this for work." or "I don't care how it works. Just make it work." They slowly accept their freedom crumbling away.
The general populace is not impressed by:
-Examples where people are stopped or pulled over to have their phones searched.
-By police raids based on incorrect information upon users of IP addresses.
-By illegal seizures of bank accounts.
-By texts used as courtroom evidence on a daily basis.
-By people who are rendered unemployable, stalked, or killed over social media content.
and many more stark examples of their rights being violated.
While I am a true believer in Richard Stallman's wisdom, I find it disheartening to work toward compelling the ignorant masses to do what is in their own best interest. Unfortunately, many seem to be perpetually immune to common sense.
Consumers of content should also be able to choose any lawful mechanism to enjoy the intellectual property that they've paid for, and DRM interfers with that. In particular, when it prevents fair use, which is instituted by the very same law that defines the existence of intellectual property, DRM is as illegal as unauthorized copying.
OK, so can we also stop complaining when people refer to copyright infringement as fraud or theft
Copyright infringement isn't theft, nothing was stolen. It's not fraud, unless you present it as something it's not.
Because while applying DRM on works you're supplying as a permanent purchase is one thing, some form of restriction is necessary in practice for any business model that works on a less permanent basis.
DRM does nothing at all to prevent copying of visual/audible art by those that wish to copy. Thus it is defective by design.
Far from being exploitative, those business models have been some of the most successful of the Internet age at both providing sustainable revenues for producers and providing more, cheaper and more easily accessible content to consumers.
Since DRM fails at its core stated purpose, I'd say there's something else afoot in providing for that revenue. In music, especially, we have demonstrable proof in iTunes, Amazon, etc, that no DRM has actually caused increased legal sales. In gog, we have proof that people will pay for software with no DRM. So I'd say it's only a matter of time until the rest of the industry finally lets go of this archaic and anti-customer concept and just provide a product people will pay for.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Why is this group fighting against DRM?
They've written extensively about it, what it is, why they object to it and so on. There are links in TFS, but if you're interested, you can start here:
https://www.defectivebydesign....
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Defective By Design
and
Copyrights Must Expire
and
Copyright Timeline
Just to give you a start...
I buy DVDs from the local second hand place and watch them. That way the copyright holders never see a penny of what I spend
Yes they do. The existence of a 2nd-hand market supports a higher 1st sale price. I will pay more for a new DVD or book if I know I can resell it to get some of that money back.
Obviously the entire world does not revolve around the convenience of one specific customer,
There are literally millions of people in first world countries with worse internet connections than I have. I like how you purposely ignored that and pretended that I'm literally the only person without a great connection.
and I think it's unreasonable to expect suppliers to open themselves up to potentially significant losses just to avoid inconveniencing you.
Your logic is that to prevent people from downloading it without paying, they should make life harder for someone who is paying, even though it's readily available from pirated sources? That makes no sense. That's the thing: these distribution companies can only have an effect on PAYING customers, and they're trying to use that mechanism to affect non paying customers.
I've never said you were advocating piracy anywhere, nor do I have this deep emotional connection to this issue that for some reason you keep mentioning. My point here remains a very simple one: copyright infringement is both morally and practically indistinguishable from some combination of theft and fraud.
And your point is unsound, especially the fraud one even more than the theft one. I've pointed out why it's unsound and you respond with arguments based on how creators are deprived of stuff by piracy. Those are appeals to emotion arguments, because they have nothing at all to do whether or not piracy is equivalent to fraud.
Let me repeat one more time: you cannot convince me that piracy is fraud and theft by telling me how people can be deprived by piracy. Whether or not you are correct that people are deprived has no bearing at all on the equivalence to theft and fraud.
A teenager getting a movie of TPB is in no way fraud because there is no element of misrepresentation. Trying to argue that it's fraud because piracy is bad mmmmkay actually weakens your argument.
My argument also remains very simple: if we assume everyone is equal and they all infringe in the same way, the ultimate result is that the creator has provided their work, yet has no compensation for it.
Yes, and that argument is: If something which doesn't happen happens, then something which doesn't happen as a consequence will happen.
To which I say: so what?
Otherwise, the original assumption of equality is unsound, and in fact some people receiving the work are given special treatment where they are not required to pay like everyone else.
Some people receiving the work are always given special treatment. The people who get it from the pirate bay get an unencumbered, advertisement free file which they can view on any device using any media player. The people paying get none of those privileges, instead being given the special treatment of an inferior product.
That's even more counterproductive!
Compare that to music, which is now blissfully unencumbered MP3s. In that case the paying customers get a better product not a worse one.
This is not in the spirit of either fairness or everyone being seen the same in the eyes of the law.
Crimes have never been seen equal in the face of the law (maybe excepting Victorian England where it was apparently fine to execute someone for murder, nicking an apple or taking leak on a bridge pillar). Crimes which are considered "worse" in some way get stronger enforcement. That has and always will be the case.
SJW n. One who posts facts.