Study On How DRM Harms Free Expression
from the free-speech-or-copyright? dept
We've been seeing a growing realization about the clear conflicts between copyright and freedom of expression -- an issue that has often been brushed aside, but in a world where nearly all communication suddenly is covered by copyright, it becomes a much bigger issue. Michael Scott points us to a UK-based study that doesn't focus on copyright and free expression specifically, but on DRM and how it limits free expression in the UK. While this may not seem directly relevant to copyright law, it absolutely is, especially with the push for global laws that make any circumvention of DRM -- even if for legal uses -- illegal. As such, DRM that prevents freedom of expression is using copyright law to back that up, which can be a violation of First Amendment rights (yes, I recognize the First Amendment is a US issue, and this study is in the UK, but it's likely the results of the study apply to the US as well).The study says that there hasn't been a catastrophic blockage of free expression, but clearly some had occurred, even though technology measures could have allowed the expression without seriously compromising the purpose of the DRM. More importantly, the study found that those who were stymied from performing legal expression due to DRM rarely used mechanisms provided by UK law to complain. This isn't that surprising, but it does make an important point: gov't officials are probably unaware of how much legal activity is stifled due to DRM, backed via gov't enforcement of copyright laws. While there are many other areas of study to be done around these issues, this is a worthwhile study in looking at how copyright and free expression can conflict.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, drm, free expression, free speech
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"For example, data collection within the film lecturers and students/researchers community revealed two problems: DRM protection of cinematographic works is leading to difficulties in extracting portions of those works for educational use and those difficulties are triggering isolated acts of self-help for academic and educational purposes."
If you can play a video / movie, then you can capture it (even if it is with a handheld camera or other). Composite video out from your DVD player will normally end up giving good enough quality for capture. It won't be the original digital version, but it will be pretty good.
For the most part, if a university professors needs a particular segemtn of a movie, they can contact the studio in question and almost certainly would be given the short segment they need to work with.
So it isn't like DRM really impedes anything except perhaps lazy professors looking to just lift a movie segment without effort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
and i call BS on you: how is a university professor going to make someone at a movie studio listen to them and produce and mail out some kind of video segment? how long is that going to take? doesnt a prof have better stuff to do?
sorry, I refuse to live in that world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Macrovision? Again, once it is decoded to analog, there isn't much left that can be done to stop a copy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you have a DRMed piece of media (DVD, CD, etc.) and you capture the decoded analog output you have just circumvented the DRM on the media. Per the DMCA, circumventing DRM in any way and for any reason (no matter if it's legal or not) is ILLEGAL. Not a civil offense, mind you. Videotaping you own TV while playing a DVD you have bought is in the same criminal category as stealing from a store. In fact, if you look at the penalties that the media companies will want for your 'crime', you're probably better off trying to steal the goddamn DVD/CD in the first place.
Begin to see an issue here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I suspect he either works for the MPAA/RIAA (ie: he's getting paid, maybe a lobbyist) or somehow he has something to gain from copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Perhaps he should just bring the DVD to class and play the parts he wants to show.
Considering that most professors use the same material for many years, it would seem that this would be such a minor issue. It certainly isn't an overwhlming stifling of free speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So then you wouldn't mind laws requiring this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sheesh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you don't like laws then lets remove copyright laws altogether. If we're going to have copyright laws then lets have some requirements to encourage fair use. Why do you want the laws to be so one sided, you want copyright laws to favor the RIAA and MPAA but you don't want any laws to favor the public domain whatsoever. You want laws in favor of rich and powerful corporations at the expense of everyone else but you don't want laws that help the general public. Besides, if you are so sure that the RIAA and MPAA would be glad to give the professors fair use footage then you should have no problems with laws requiring it. If anything, such laws just alleviates the copyright laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is an agreement between the people and copyright holders that the people (who delegate their authority to the government) will protect copyright laws only to the extent that doing so is best for society. We have ZERO obligation to protect copyright laws or even to have them. If we don't want copyright laws and you don't like it then no one is forcing you to produce anything. If you don't like the laws in place, again, no one is forcing you to produce anything. Or you can produce it and keep it secret or whatever, but it's not our responsibility to protect copyright only to the benefit of copyright holders. If you want you can protect copyright and keep the government out of it (including the courts).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Geez.
One of the problems you guys have is that you fail to connect copyright laws with property laws. The movie is owned by someone. Just like you own your car or your house, you have the right to determine who can ride in your car or visit your house. I am sure you wouldn't be very happy if a law was enacted that told you that a university professor would teach one class a week in your living room, and another one in your car.
In the end, copyright really creates the rules that allow the owner of a work to grant very specific and limit rights to people to enjoy their product, but not to own it. Sort of like setting up rules for carpooling or renting that extra apartment in your basement. With a collection of understandings and rules, it makes the process simpler for everyone.
The professors are already taken care of under the current copyright law, they can use a very short clip at any time. If DRM makes it difficult for them, then they can just get off their lazy butts and zip a note off to the studio asking for the clip in question to use. They could also bring the DRMed DVD into class and play it there anyway.
New laws to cover rare exceptions to a case isn't the answer, and certainly isn't a big enough deal to say that DRM stifles anything other than perhaps lazy professors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
New laws to cover rare exceptions to a case isn't the answer, and certainly isn't a big enough deal to say that DRM stifles anything other than perhaps lazy professors.
"
One sided copyright laws aren't the answer and they are a big enough deal to warrant the assurance of fair laws for everyone.
You claim that the record companies will be happy to accommodate the professors but then you refuse to have laws requiring this. If the record companies would truly be happy to accommodate the professors then you should have no problems with such laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So then you admit that they won't/may not be happy to help a professor out. I rest my case.
If specific record/movie companies don't like the terms of the agreement with the public then no one is forcing them to produce and sell anything. If they want to sell to the public they have to sell under fair, non one sided terms. If they don't like it, tough, don't sell. The public can find someone else.
"I don't think that passing a law to force them to do it is really beneficial to anyone except perhaps the professors."
It helps students and their education and it helps the general public. I don't think that one sided copyright laws in favor of rich and powerful special interest groups (ie: the MPAA and RIAA) is beneficial to anyone except those special interest groups. The public should not settle for such ridiculous laws.
"With so many movies and so many recording to choose from, they can just move along and try again."
Perhaps one movie has a clip that makes a point that the professor wants to make better than all other movies. Should we reduce the quality of our education just because the selfish RIAA and MPAA want one sided laws? Should we force professors to go through the trouble of searching through multiple movies (which means they may have to pay money to rent/buy those movies and spend time watching them) to try and find the next best clip that makes his point from the pool of movies and the to make a request for that clip only to potentially have that denied? Then by the time he does get a company that agrees to give him a fair usage clip, it'll be a clip that doesn't do a very good job at making his point (especially since movies from a specific company may have similar themes and if that company refuses to give a clip to one of their movies, who's to say they will give one to another. Another movie from another company may not have that theme and as such it may not make the point the professor wants to make). You want to substantially reduce social welfare and make professors go through a lot of unnecessary trouble (and to reduce the education of students) just to make the RIAA and MPAA happy and we should not settle for such ridiculous one sided copyright laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So we're going to reduce the quality of our education just to make the RIAA and MPAA happy? Nonsense, social welfare is more important than the profit margins of the RIAA and MPAA.
"For the most part, if a university professors needs a particular segemtn of a movie, they can contact the studio in question and almost certainly would be given the short segment they need to work with."
So you're going to make professors go through all this unnecessary trouble to educate his students just to make the RIAA and MPAA happy? Again, I call nonsense, for the same reasons as above. Not to mention the RIAA and MPAA may not even respond to the professors (unless laws require it, which might be a good idea).
Not to mention, if I buy a CD / DVD I want to be able to keep the original in good condition without having to be paranoid about something going wrong. I want to be able to make a copy and keep the original safe somewhere so I can use the copy. If the copy gets scratched to the point where it skips or something I should be able to destroy it and make another copy. That way I keep the original in good condition. This is good for social welfare, but I suppose social welfare is not as important than the profit margins of rich and powerful corporations. Also, when the copyright expires (and copyright should NOT last forever minus one day, perhaps 5 - 7 years AT MOST) I should be able to have a CD / DVD that still works (and hasn't aged so much that half the data is missing) so that it can then be freely distributed and watched and put in museums (many years later) and used for educational purposes, etc... But I suppose social welfare is less important than the profit margins of rich and powerful corporations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you are so certain of this, then you shouldn't mind laws requiring this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Identify the Issues
Technology should always be designed to encourage human discourse in whatever way is necessary.
The impact of technology like DRM which is really an extension of copyrights has done little but annoy end users IMHO.
Is this a problem that could continue to grow and eventually impede our ability to comminucate through art and media? I think that is what is at the heart of the current debate.
Is ending a bad system now before it causes anymore (or any) real harm is something that should always be considered seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Identify the Issues
So we should shut down P2P networks? They cause at least some harm, it seems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Identify the Issues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Why does there need to be a law?"
The only reason why you should be opposed to a law requiring them to help out a professor and such is if you know that they won't be happy to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE:
"The movie is owned by someone."
The person who bought it.
"In the end, copyright really creates the rules that allow the owner of a work to grant very specific and limit rights to people to enjoy their product, but not to own it."
The creator of a work is not equivalent to the owner of the work. If someone lives in a house that someone else builds, does the person who built the house own the house indefinitely just because he built it? No. He built the house under an agreement. Perhaps he was a contractor building it under a contract. The contract ends, does this mean the house belongs to him just because he built it? No. Copyright is an agreement that if you create a work the public will grant you a monopoly on that work for a limited amount of time. If you don't like the agreement, if you think the amount of time is too short, then don't create the work. We'll have someone else do it. Just like I can hire someone else to build a house if you don't like my terms. In the case of building a house you don't single sidedly dictate the terms, the terms are an agreement between both parties. If we can't come to an agreement that you don't like, then don't build (I can find someone else). Same thing with the creation of a work. You have no right to single sidedly dictate the terms with the public domain, it's an agreement between both parties. If you want a single sided policy and the public domain refuses then no one is forcing you to create anything. We'll hire someone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RE:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The person who creates the work sells it to the public under specific terms (ie: a limited monopoly for a limited time). When you sell something, it's no longer yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You're missing the point. There is an agreement between the public and the author of a work in terms of what is being bought. That agreement shouldn't be one sided in favor of the author alone. If a potential author (or the RIAA or MPAA) doesn't like the terms then no one is forcing them to create anything. But the public shouldn't settle for ridiculously unfair terms just to make every last potential artist happy (or just to make the RIAA and MPAA happy).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]