Slashdot Mirror
'It's Always DRM's Fault' (publicknowledge.org)
A social media post from Anders G da Silva, who accused Apple of deleting movies he had purchased from iTunes, went viral earlier this month. There is more to that story, of course. In a statement to CNET, Apple explained that da Silva had purchased movies while living in Australia, with his iTunes region set to "Australia." Then he moved to Canada, and found that the movies were no longer available for download -- due, no doubt, to licensing restrictions, including restrictions on Apple itself. While his local copies of the movies were not deleted, they were deleted from his cloud library. Apple said the company had shared a workaround with da Silva to make it easier for him to download his movies again. Public Knowledge posted a story Tuesday to weigh in on the subject, especially since today is International Day Against DRM. From the post: To that rare breed of person who carefully reads terms of service and keeps multiple, meticulous backups of important files, da Silva should have expected that his ability to access movies he thought he'd purchased might be cut off because he'd moved from one Commonwealth country to another. Just keep playing your original file! But DRM makes this an unreasonable demand. First, files with DRM are subject to break at any time. DRM systems are frequently updated, and often rely on phoning home to some server to verify that they can still be played. Some technological or business change may have turned the most carefully backed-up and preserved digital file into just a blob of unreadable encrypted bits.
Second, even if they are still playable, files with DRM are not very portable, and they might not fit in with modern workflows. To stay with the Apple and iTunes example, the old-fashioned way to watch a movie purchased from the iTunes Store would be to download it in the iTunes desktop app, and then watch it there, sync it to a portable device, or keep iTunes running as a "server" in your home where it can be streamed to devices such as the Apple TV. But this is just not how things are done anymore. To watch an iTunes movie on an Apple TV, you stream or download it from Apple's servers. To watch an iTunes movie on an iPhone, same thing. (And because this is the closed-off ecosystem of DRM'd iTunes movies, if you want to watch your movie on a Roku or an Android phone, you're just out of luck.)
[...] My takeaway is that, if a seller of DRM'd digital media uses words like "purchase" and "buy," they have at a minimum an obligation to continue to provide additional downloads of that media, in perpetuity. Fine print aside, without that, people simply aren't getting what they think they're getting for their money, and words like "rent" and "borrow" are more appropriate. Of course, there is good reason to think that even then people are not likely to fully understand that "buying" something in the digital world is not the same as buying something in the physical world, and more ambitious measures may be required to ensure that people can still own personal property in the digital marketplace. See the excellent work of Aaron Perzanowski and Jason Schultz on this point. But the bare minimum of "owning" a movie would seem to be the continued ability to actually watch it.
Second, even if they are still playable, files with DRM are not very portable, and they might not fit in with modern workflows. To stay with the Apple and iTunes example, the old-fashioned way to watch a movie purchased from the iTunes Store would be to download it in the iTunes desktop app, and then watch it there, sync it to a portable device, or keep iTunes running as a "server" in your home where it can be streamed to devices such as the Apple TV. But this is just not how things are done anymore. To watch an iTunes movie on an Apple TV, you stream or download it from Apple's servers. To watch an iTunes movie on an iPhone, same thing. (And because this is the closed-off ecosystem of DRM'd iTunes movies, if you want to watch your movie on a Roku or an Android phone, you're just out of luck.)
[...] My takeaway is that, if a seller of DRM'd digital media uses words like "purchase" and "buy," they have at a minimum an obligation to continue to provide additional downloads of that media, in perpetuity. Fine print aside, without that, people simply aren't getting what they think they're getting for their money, and words like "rent" and "borrow" are more appropriate. Of course, there is good reason to think that even then people are not likely to fully understand that "buying" something in the digital world is not the same as buying something in the physical world, and more ambitious measures may be required to ensure that people can still own personal property in the digital marketplace. See the excellent work of Aaron Perzanowski and Jason Schultz on this point. But the bare minimum of "owning" a movie would seem to be the continued ability to actually watch it.
People like you are why we can't have nice things. Theft is theft.
Ahh, but what if you pay for a movie on a service like iTunes, *then* download the pirated content as a form of backup?
I do like providing money for people that make content I enjoy, that way they get some money and you get the desired level of freedom.
That is technically theft but ethically it's not theft to me. Nor would it be to most people. I wonder if you did that, as long as you did not re-share the content if there's a jury anywhere that would convict you.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The one thing I learned about stuff like eBooks and other DRM-encumbered media is to buy it from the vendor that is the easiest to decrypt. I don't use iBooks, because there are no decryption methods, and one is locked to an Apple platform. Kindle and Kobo, I can use a tool to decrypt my eBooks, throw the decrypted copies into Calibre, and continue on with life. I have purchased tens of thousands of eBooks, and because I did my homework, I can read them anywhere, or even print them out and have a usable hardcopy. Had I bought the books from the Apple Store, I would be limited on the devices I could use... i.e. only current iWhatzits.
You're deploying your content to a turing complete device. DRM won't work. It will either be ineffective or so bad it will regularly screw over your most loyal customers. All others will get the rips because it's waaaay less hassle without DRM.
It's a crying shame if you are in the business and haven't gotten that into you thick stupid skull by now.
Forget DRM and offer a good purchasing experience and people will flock to you in droves. Best current example: gog.com.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
while the requirements MAY be complex (they often aren't) misrepresentation IS the core issue.
If the "complex requirements" result in a product that is not salable without misrepresentation or terms that require extensive legal review... Perhaps the problem lies there, not with the consumers outrage.
In my opinion, the reality is that media consumption is an increasingly global and almost homogeneous market, divided more by language than national borders. Other English speaking regions have come to expect access to first run media at the same time as the US markets
What I think should be done is to release titles in their original language in every country that speaks that language at the same time, with dubbed and/or subbed versions being released the same way as various language versions are available. Thus, the Australian market would have access to everything available in the US, UK Canada etc markets. A release from France would be available in Belgium, Canada, Haiti and so on. What I'm not sure of is whether machine translation of spoken word or print is good enough for a publisher to use to speed up and reduce the cost of distributing in other languages. The machine translation of text I've seen is certainly good enough to get the gist across, good enough for basic communication, but not quite good enough for say an official Russian edition of Harry Potter. Once machine translation is good enough for a release of a major title, going after the long tail of smaller foreign language markets gets much cheaper. But that does require that the media producers and IP holders get past the idea of being able to see significant income on A-list titles for years.
I'm not sure, not being a Hollywood accountant, but I suspect one hurdle that most people don't consider is that there are a number of people who get paid out of local market releases that never see a dime of foreign release revenue. It's to the IP holders advantage to keep the two markets separate as a result.
I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
When it comes to intellectual "property", the full picture is likely to only enrage me further. The upshot is usually that companies have turned their temporary monopolies (what copyright is, or used to be) into actual property, and at the same time turned what by rights should be our property into a temporary license that can be revoked on a whim.
I am old fashioned and I like building a library of music and movies, even if it's a digital one. Streaming's no good precisely because of this issue: Netflix doesn't renew their license or I move to a different country or whatever, and stuff randomly disappears. Like the removal guys stealing a couple of my books when I move house. Here's a deal for the movie companies: sell me a license that entitles me to a copy of your movie. You don't need to actually provide the file or a disc, I can get the file myself, not to worry. Save us both a little money and hassle. As long as that license continues to grant me the right to have that movie in whatever format on any device, in perpetuity. I'll pay, gladly.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
I am okay with incentivizing creation.
Heck, let's pour on more than we do now! Prolekistan is about to lose their only export and we're woefully underprepared. One of the few reliable human domains is Come Up With New Shit.
I am not okay with imaginary property.
Are extraterrestrials aware that some monkeys with briefcases in a glass cube called dibs on that shoelace knot? Everywhere in the universe, simultaneously, forever. Even after Joe Brown has ceased brainwave activity he has rights on brainwaves. I couldn't discuss the morals if i wanted to; before that, we have a very weird expectation of sheer technical logistics, preempting anything else.
Assuming I did recognize the ownership as viable, I then have a problem assigning product value on a non-product. We have never seen a free market, but insisting that "GGADAGC starting at 82.0Hz" requires an exchange of goods, intrinsically, is the accepting of a construct in a manner only matched by Christianity. Gander than the diamond cartel, who at least dealt in scarce-ifying a quantified tangible.
All that said, I have no idea how we could accomplish a cash system for creation. It's hard to do without coming up with random ass rules, easily exploited bullshit, ass-eating contrived logic, unsupported conclusion leaps, etc.
i.e. what we have right now