[dundee] DRM - Making people criminals (either way)

[Iain Barnett]

On 14 Oct 2008, at 2:47 am, Rick Moynihan wrote:
> Now, I never said...
>

My 2nd response was formed, in part, in response to the "gold pools"  
comment, so some bits don't apply to your comic. But, for the sake of  
a good argument, I'll ignore those bits or it'll be like untangling  
spaghetti! :)


>   The comic implies the opposite.  That people
> are criminals for legitimately circumventing DRM.

You can't legitimately become a criminal ;) Just a pedantic joke. I  
know what you're getting at - people are stupid for purchasing  
Microsoft products, right? ;)  Sorry, couldn't help myself. I promise  
to be serious now.

>
> To equate piracy with theft is also unfair, because it isn't.

I disagree. Theft is simply taking that which is not given. It is not  
connected to the ability to reproduce or what you have in stock or  
anything like that. An infinite, completely reproducible object can  
be stolen. That something is practically unlimited does not imply the  
right to take it. Piracy, by definition, requires theft and is an  
extension of theft. This doesn't even take into account that if a  
work is taken without permission then the producer receives no money  
(another form of theft).


> Your email analogy doesn't really work.  You're right that I use
> passwords to protect my email assets, but to imply that DRM's ok
> merely because they're protecting their assets is to imply that it's
> ok for me to install spyware on your PC, so I can check you're not
> reading my email.  The difference is that DRM aggressively polices
> you, where as a password passively protects my privacy.

I don't think that the location that security is applied necessarily  
makes it aggressive or passive, or even that it's "aggression" is an  
issue - both methods prompt for a key on access. DRM is applied on  
the device that reads the data, just as the password is (on the  
mailserver). If your emails were moved onto my box along with the  
security for them then it would also, in your terms, be aggressive  
and not passive.  Therefore, I don't think your statement holds.  
(This also ignores the fact that the mailserver doesn't need to know  
where you are, since a networked resource becomes part of the same de  
facto system).

Also, "spyware" is a bit of a weasel word. They're not spying on you  
through application of DRM. Spying is not restricting. If I send you  
an encrypted file and give you key to decrypt it with, then I'm not  
spying on you. If I give you a piece of software that you can only  
use on one machine that decrypts the file then I'm not spying on you.  
Restricting your access to that file, yes. Collecting and reporting  
information i.e. spying, no. (unless you count sending your password  
to the mailserver as spying too?)


> You mention trust, but it's trust that DRM gets backwards.  Why should
> we trust a 3rd party corporation to police us?  Why should we allow
> them to renegotiate their terms on us for content we have already
> bought?  Why give them more control?  Negotiation in DRM is one way,
> and it's just another form a lock in, but with far broader
> consequences.
>

When it comes to trust, I don't trust a 3rd party full stop. Whether  
that be a corporation or any other entity, such as a teenager, I  
don't have to trust them. In fact, I know that corporations *do* want  
to spy on me and restrict me unfairly. I also know that a lot of  
people *do* like to copy and keep music without any intention to pay  
for it. Both are greedy, both are violating the terms of fair use and  
I don't see why I should side with one or the other. Since both sides  
are equally to blame and have equally valid arguments about each  
other, then I can fully _understand_ why DRM is applied and will  
continue.

> I agree, but find it worrying how you seem to believe DRM should be
> imposed on people without choice.


It *is* a choice. Just as the GPL is a choice. If you don't like the  
terms then go elsewhere.  Buy cd's instead - no lock in, no theft. Of  
course, if the contract restricts other rights then you the have  
right to fight the contract in that particular instance. That  
wouldn't _necessarily_ mean that DRM should be removed completely,  
but in a particular instance.

I haven't confused freedom with price, I'm well aware of the free as  
in speech/beer argument. I'm more of a BSD than a GPL man.

Btw, email is not the easiest way to be tactful especially when I  
already lack tact, so just in case it happens, don't think I'm  
getting at you personally. It's just an interesting argument.

Iain