DRM Is The Right To Make Up Your Own Copyright Laws
from the why-anticircumvention-laws-are-a-problem dept
We've written about the problems of DRM and anti-circumvention laws since basically when we started way back in 1997. Cory Doctorow has been writing about the same stuff for just about as long (or perhaps longer). And yet, just when you think everything that can be said about this stuff has been said, Doctorow comes along and writes what may be the best column describing why DRM, combined with anti-circumvention laws, is so incredibly nefarious. Read the whole thing. It's so well done, and so important, I'm actually going to write two posts about it, because there are two separate issues that deserve highlighting.The first concerns just how the combination of DRM and anti-circumvention is effectively a way that the content industry (and many other industries since) have been able to void the limitations on copyright law. Here's the key paragraph, which follows a discussion of the Reimerdes case, which more or less said that breaking any DRM is illegal in itself, even if the circumvention is done for legal reasons. And, because of that, we've taken copyright out of the law, and put it into the DRM:
Ever since Reimerdes, it's been clear that DRM isn't the right to prevent piracy: it's the right to make up your own copyright laws. The right to invent things that people aren't allowed to do – even though the law permits it -- and to embed these prohibitions in code that is illegal to violate. Reimerdes also showed us that DRM is the right to suppress speech: the right to stop people from uttering code or keys or other expressions if there is some chance that these utterances will interfere with your made-up copyright laws.This is an important point summarized so perfectly that it deserves to be repeated over and over again. Because any circumvention of DRM is considered illegal, even if the purpose of the circumvention itself is legal, it basically gives not just "the copyright industries" but pretty much any industry the road map to stop people from making, say, fair use of copyrighted works. Or, worse, preventing them from tinkering with products they own. It allows them to wipe out fair use and other important user rights -- by just writing into code that it's not allowed, and even though that code is easily breakable, making that code breaking itself a form of "infringement."
In short, DRM with anti-circumvention restrictions lets industries simply route around the aspects of copyright law that are designed to protect the user's rights.
And, because of that, Doctorow wonders if there's a chance go to back and revisit the Reimerdes case, and bring back freedom to the public. As we've noted in the past, fair use is not, as some would have you believe, a "limitation and exception" to copyright, but rather a definition of the public's rights, whereby copyright is a limitation on those rights. DRM with anti-circumvention actually blocks those rights. Cory further points to another milestone case involving software, Bernstein v. US, in which it was determined that software was a form of speech, and that restricting it was a First Amendment violation. Doctorow notes that Reimerdes goes against that ruling -- and he thinks that this, plus a decade plus showing the damages done to the public's rights because of the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA, open up a real opportunity to revisit the issue:
No court case is ever a sure thing, but I believe that there's a good chance that a judge in 2014 might answer the DMCA/free speech question very differently. In 14 years, the case for code as expressive speech has only strengthened, and the dangers of censoring code have only become more apparent.We've seen entrepreneurs take on these kinds of high risk/high reward challenges before (Aereo comes to mind, though so do ones that ended up failing in court, such as ivi and Zediva), so this seems like a very real possibility. This would be an important ruling not just to free up innovation, but to bring back the rights of the public, and to stop an encroachment that began years ago, entirely at the behest of a legacy entertainment industry who was focused on using mechanisms of control to remove the freedoms of the public, solely to protect an obsolete business model.
If I was a canny entrepreneur with a high appetite for risk -- and a reasonable war-chest for litigation – I would be thinking very seriously about how to build a technology that adds legal features to a DRM-enfeebled system (say, Itunes/Netflix/Amazon video), features that all my competitors are too cowardly to contemplate. The potential market for devices that do legal things that people want to do is titanic, and a judgment that went the right way on this would eliminate a serious existential threat to computer security, which, these days, is a synonym for security itself.
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: anti-circumvention, bernstein, code, copyright, cory doctorow, drm, fair use, free speech, reimerdes
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What, you mean like unintended consequences?
This is the true root of the evil that is DRM. It has nothing to do with being ineffective or inconvenient. It's all about creating control over something where it does not legally exist.
In the situation with Adobe's recent announcement, the focus has been too much on the annoyance to the end-user. But looking for the control aspect, it's plain to see how Adobe can change their DRM to create a ton of new licenses. Obsoleting old devices generates a bunch of new purchases, and even existing devices that can be "upgraded" will almost certainly result in more revenue from the device maker to Adobe.
Just rev that DRM every few years to keep the cash flowing. It all comes from the consumer indirectly, anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What, you mean like unintended consequences?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Absolutely IS! "I made it, therefore I own it", and ALL rights to dispose of it.
You must vote with your money. That's the ONLY legal way to express your displeasure with DRM.
"potential market for devices that do legal things that people want to do is titanic," -- Oooh, is that equivocal.
Huh? -- HEY, I SEE YOU FANBOYS! STOP READING MY POSTS IF YOU'RE JUST GOING TO "REPORT" ME!
Where the fanboys troll the site with vulgar ad hom, and call anyone disagreeing "trolls"! (7 of 201)
07:15:09[i-226-0]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Absolutely IS! "I made it, therefore I own it", and ALL rights to dispose of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Absolutely IS! "I made it, therefore I own it", and ALL rights to dispose of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Absolutely IS! "I made it, therefore I own it", and ALL rights to dispose of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Absolutely IS! "I made it, therefore I own it", and ALL rights to dispose of it.
Ah, yes, the view Stephen Kinsella calls "libertarian creationism."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Absolutely IS! "I made it, therefore I own it", and ALL rights to dispose of it.
P.S. If your comment is "censored" it will be totally deleted. Period. Reporting it hides it from people who don't care for idiots in the discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The ONLY legal way?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Absolutely IS! "I made it, therefore I own it", and ALL rights to dispose of it.
What a laughable and impotent platitude! If money gets you "votes" in the market, then who has the most votes? The people with a war chest the size of the Exxon Valdez, you twit! If your influence is contingent on how much money you have, then it's pretty plain why nothing changes. The status quo has the money. The status quo has the votes. The status quo has the most influence and they can leverage that influence to make sure they get to keep it. So you can take your "vote with your money" excuse and stuff it up your atrophied posterior until you can tickle your adenoids with it.
Do you even know what an ad hominem attack even is? No, you don't. "You can't trust John's recommendations on tax policy, he doesn't even have a job!". That, is an ad hominem. Calling you out on your bad behavior is not an ad hominem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What a fucking jacktard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This isn't so new
In any other context, a private entity taking the enforcement of the law into their own hands, judging who is guilty and who is not and then punishing the guilty according to rules they devised themselves is considered legally and socially abhorrent. We call such people vigilantes, and there are very strict laws against doing so, particularly when the vigilante and the alleged victim are the same entity.
Why does this simple bit of common sense suddenly get turned on its head when the law being allegedly violated is copyright law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This isn't so new
You have two sets of rights in copyright law: Public rights and corporate rights.
Public rights would be fair use, archiving, etc.
Corporate rights are basically DRM, three strikes laws, and ways to usurp the rights of the public.
When we battle, we fight for public rights over corporate rights, our the rights against control of dissemination.
That's why framing the issue in this way would help more poorer understand why fair use, the rights of the public, have been decimated for so long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This isn't so new
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This isn't so new
It really is that simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't so new
We've had 40-50 years of the MPAA in control of innovation and they've done a poor job of utilizing the technology.
We're having the same fights we've had in the 1800s in other places such as the UK.
So if that is the case, we're repeating the issues and that isn't moving us forward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The fallout from DRM
One of the rights given to me is the right to make a backup. With DRM, I no longer have that right. It forces me to buy another widget instead.
It also keeps me from using the widget as I please. This came out recently as I was trying to move music and movies to a media device so I didn't have to risk scratching a disk. It avoids all the wait time while a DVD is loading. It lets me randomize the order that I play things in.
But with DRM, I have to ask permission to do anything, and the answer is always "No!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The fallout from DRM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The fallout from DRM
As the AC said, the answer isn't "NO!", it's "give us more money and we'll think about it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The fallout from DRM
For which the response from the potential customer should be "Screw you, I'll make my purchases from companies and groups that respect my right to control what I've purchased, and don't try and charge me multiple times for something I've already paid for, so you can go bankrupt for all I care."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No vaccine against bit rot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
REPOST in game of whack-a-mole: Absolutely IS! "I made it, therefore I own it", and ALL rights to dispose of it.
You must vote with your money. That's the ONLY legal way to express your displeasure with DRM.
"potential market for devices that do legal things that people want to do is titanic," -- Oooh, is that equivocal.
Huh? -- HEY, I SEE YOU FANBOYS! STOP READING MY POSTS IF YOU'RE JUST GOING TO "REPORT" ME!
No tyrants are worse than "libertarians", because they're new to it and don't understand the practical limits, and are so utterly certain that their own personal will is the Supreme Best. (202 of 203)
07:52:04[i-705-4]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Absolutely IS! "I made it, therefore I own it", and ALL rights to dispose of it.
You must vote with your money. That's the ONLY legal way to express your displeasure with DRM.
"potential market for devices that do legal things that people want to do is titanic," -- Oooh, is that equivocal.
Huh? -- HEY, I SEE YOU FANBOYS! STOP READING MY POSTS IF YOU'RE JUST GOING TO "REPORT" ME!
By the way, kids: I'm stubborn and thrive on adversity, always stirs me to get inventive. (203 of 203)
07:53:33[i-810-6]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can't decide if it's more funny or sad ...
Sad, on the one hand, because it's only further cementing his well earned reputation as a total looney and he just doesn't have the sense to realize that the more he shouts the less he will be heard.
Funny, on the other, because of the schadenfreude for someone who really deserves it.
It must be like a big old stew of apoplexy and impotence for him.
Regardless, it obvious that's he having a meltdown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair Use
This implies heavily that they would have come out in favor of fair use if the defendants weren't dirty, rotten pirates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At some point copyright runs out, be that a year or a lifetime. No one is going to take the DRM out after it is in public domain. So in essence it violates in the end copyright limitations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When I die, for me, all copyrights have expired as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I also remember reading a quote somewhere by Roderick T. Long to the extent that we treat scarce resources as if we could never run out of them and non-scarce resources as if there's a terrible shortage.
When did I wake up in Bizarro world?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM Is The Right for **Corporations** To Make Up Their Own Copyright Laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DRM Is The Right for **Corporations** To Make Up Their Own Copyright Laws
It would be fine if DRM existed and circumvention methods were legal. It's the outlawing of circumvention methods that makes our use of things WE PAID FOR a crime.
Individual rights on real things become subservient to corporate rights over imaginary things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DRM Is The Right for **Corporations** To Make Up Their Own Copyright Laws
No it wouldn't.
What DRM does is takes the fundamental control of the operation of your computer away from you--the computer's rightful owner--and places it under the control of another party. In any other context, that's known as hacking, and is illegal. Why should there be any difference in this specific case?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: DRM Is The Right for **Corporations** To Make Up Their Own Copyright Laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: DRM Is The Right for **Corporations** To Make Up Their Own Copyright Laws
That Subset of computer crime that relies on the victim to betray themselves, like a phishing email claiming to need your personal information & bank details because the bank computer is broken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DRM Is The Right for **Corporations** To Make Up Their Own Copyright Laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: DRM Is The Right for **Corporations** To Make Up Their Own Copyright Laws
Not exactly. The term hacking has a very specific meaning that many people lose sight of which doesn't have any of the negative connotations commonly associated with it in and of itself. Hacking is tinkering with and studying something in an attempt to figure out how it works. Sometimes that involves changing it to work in a different way than it originally did. Sometimes the purpose of hacking something is to do some nefarious activity. However hacking something itself isn't necessarily bad.
If you design something a to work a certain way and limit the end user's access to it, you aren't hacking it. However if the user tears it apart and studies it in an attempt to figure out how to get past those designed barriers, that of course would constitute hacking it. An individual that tears apart their car and customizes it could be described as a hacker. However, the original manufacturer wouldn't be a hacker at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: DRM Is The Right for **Corporations** To Make Up Their Own Copyright Laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DRM Is The Right for **Corporations** To Make Up Their Own Copyright Laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DRM Is The Right for **Corporations** To Make Up Their Own Copyright Laws
It is when the "something" in question is someone else's property, which is what DRM does. It hacks my property (my computer) to take my rightful control of what I can do with it away from me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DRM Is The Right for **Corporations** To Make Up Their Own Copyright Laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DRM Is The Right for **Corporations** To Make Up Their Own Copyright Laws
"Hacking" in legal terms is breaking into someone else's computer system. It has nothing to do with breaking encryption. The piracy that often accompanies cracking also has nothing to do with the legal definition of "Hacking". That was just garden variety copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DRM Is The Right for **Corporations** To Make Up Their Own Copyright Laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DRM Is The Right for **Corporations** To Make Up Their Own Copyright Laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DRM Is The Right for **Corporations** To Make Up Their Own Copyright Laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DRM Is The Right for **Corporations** To Make Up Their Own Copyright Laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DRM Is The Right for **Corporations** To Make Up Their Own Copyright Laws
'Seller agrees that the transfer of funds is merely a license to access said funds, and that this license can be revoked at the whim of the purchaser, at any time, and for any reason, removing the seller's access to said funds. Seller further agrees to follow the 'use guidelines' with regards to what the funds may be used for, and acknowledges that violations of these guidelines will render the license null and void, revoking seller's access to the funds.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ah, at last the "Comment held for Moderation!" -- So Mike does censor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ah, at last the "Comment held for Moderation!" -- So Mike does censor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ah, at last the "Comment held for Moderation!" -- So Mike does censor.
i am THE most adamant and extreme defender of the true concept of free speech as you will find on these tubes, and *I* hate the lamer so much *I* WANT TO censor him...
as far as i'm concerned, he/she/it has forfeited all 'rights' by being SUCH a total tool nearly all the time...
the VERY FEW nuggets of semi-wisdom he/she/it OCCASIONALLY has are not crucial to the education of us all, and NOT WORTH THE ANNOYANCE of him being such a fucktard 99% of the time...
at some point, you just don't give a shit about an annoying child 'expressing themselves', and just want them to STFU...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ah, at last the "Comment held for Moderation!" -- So Mike does censor.
REPORT OOTB AND EVERYONE WHO RESPONDS TO HIM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nope. Wrong....again, Blue.
Repeating the same thing over and over tends to be viewed as spam and will get caught in the spam filter. I've had it happen to me even though I have an account. It's probably even more stringent for anonymous users like you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DRM
Why wouldn't they? They are not technically required for such services - it's only the legacy gatekeepers that require DRM. The customers or the service providers themselves don't need it nor really want it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DRM
Netflix would be in a similar position. They don't offer offline downloads like Spotify, but without DRM, they wouldn't be able to protect their streams. If they can't protect their streams, there is nothing preventing people from downloading all their favorite shows and canceling. Or just using trials and never subscribing in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: DRM
your whole assumptions that protections are necessary goes out of the window right there. people can find everything those services offer for free already, regardless if it is illegal or not.
so, riddle me this, since everything can be found for free already and people still use those services, what exactly does your protection achieve?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: DRM
If someone was willing to download the music/movies like that, why would they ever bother paying out for even a trial subscription in the first place? The option to download the music/movies is already out there, to say that if those services dropped DRM suddenly people would do what they already can, doesn't seem to hold up under scrutiny.
Services like Spotify and Netflix succeed not because they're infested with DRM and locked down, but because they offer an easier alternative to piracy, the idea of 'movies/music whenever I want, with minimal hassle, for a decent price', and it's been made quite clearly that people are quite willing to pay for a service like that, if offered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: DRM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: DRM
This is absolutely not true, as demonstrated both by the experiences of similar services in the past and by the fact that people pay for these services right now when they could easily get everything on them for free by pirating. Right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: DRM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: DRM
Except that I could do the same damn thing with analogue CDs. Linkin Park and "Weird Al" Yankovic don't get any extra money each time I play the CDs I purchased legally.
Funny how, for all the "downloading is stealing" ranting that copyright fans like to make, they get to pick and choose when the lines between analogue and digital blur.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: DRM
As far as I know, internet services such as Spotify are licensed as "broadcasters" and do pay these traditional bodies for use of the works. In fact one of the issues related to Apple's new broadcast service is the deal they cut (only in USA) achieves a lower effective royalty rate (as it was bundled with iTunes licensing for sales, apparently) .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DRM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DRM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: DRM
http://www.giantbomb.com/articles/the-youtube-snake-is-eating-itself/1100-4815/
It's also probably worth mentioning that copyright has become such low, spooky voodoo that most people have no idea how it works or where it applies anymore, yet that hasn't ruined any businesses. For all intents and purposes, copyright is no longer relevant in the modern era, and everyone is pretty happy living without knowledge or care of it until some big corporation stomps in to remind everyone of why we can't have nice things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DRM
You say that as if the DRM is an essential component to the way Netflix and Spotify work but you know full well the only reason that's true is because the incumbent music and movie industries insist upon it. If I demand 1,000,000 blue M&Ms to do my job that does not mean by job only exists because of blue M&Ms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not just copyright related ones, either.. Laws that tie hardware and software together, tie data to particular applications.. All sorts of bad stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For example, a license might state that you are not allowed to reverse-engineer a program. Technically, you may be allowed by law (fair use) to do so, but you are breaking the contract. That still causes a huge mess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And I would much rather be sued for breach of contract than copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The key part being the codification of the law. (Sorry, I couldn't help myself.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Nuff said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Problem with Doctorow's Proposal?
So then you accomplish what?
Obviously many artists themselves might be interested to publish on such a system, in which case (eventually) there might be substantial libraries of media without the problem, but ....
.... I don't see how that is used as the basis to sue to change existing law, if that is the/one intent.
IOW, such a system I presume to have, in theory:
(a) DRM to prevent pirating
(b) Features to allow at least one full personal copy
(c) Features to allow sampling for fair use
Love it. Now, how do you use that to initiate a legal process to overturn the present law against hacking other DRM systems?
Am I missing something? Please explain.
Sincerely,
Confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Problem with Doctorow's Proposal?
Determining what is, or isn't, covered by "Fair Use" is well beyond -- and intrinsically beyond -- the purview and the capacity of an application or computer program.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]