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

[Rick Moynihan]

2008/10/14 Iain Barnett <iainspeed at gmail.com>:
> I fail to see how an argument that relies on moral superiority means
> it's ok to take what is not given? Linux is freely given, music may
> not be. If it's not, and you take it, then you are stealing. How is
> one person's greed for money worse than another's greed for music?
> They are both a desire for more of a resource and both lead to a
> restricted flow of money towards other people. One is not more
> immoral than the other, they only differ in opportunity (which leads
> to the difference in scope).

Now, I never said it's ok to take what is not given; and I'm wondering
whether you missed the point at the bottom of the comic which says "If
you don't like this demand DRM free files".  Where the "don't like
this" refers to the two options presented in the strip DRM and Piracy.

The comic itself highlights one of the biggest problems with DRM.  The
problem, that DRM'd content is inherently worth less than pirated (DRM
free) content, because DRM'd content explicitly prevents you from
doing otherwise legitimate activities such as  transferring music to a
different brand of MP3 Player, or skipping adverts on a DVD.  If you
try and break the DRM on content you purchased for your Zune to
transfer the music to an ipod, then you're a criminal like the pirate
(despite the fact you paid for the content).

To equate piracy with theft is also unfair, because it isn't.  It's
something else entirely.  If a music CD is illegally copied, then it's
not like HMV has one less CD to sell.  Also, it's patently untrue to
assume that every case of piracy resulted in a lost sale.

Music isn't a resource in the traditional sense, as it need not be
scarce.  DRM is a failing attempt to impose an artificial scarcity on
an abundant resource; as teaching computers not to copy information is
ultimately a futile task, akin to asking water not to be wet.

> As for implying that people are criminals through the application of
> DRM, I suppose you'd give out your email address with your password?

I implied no such thing.  The comic implies the opposite.  That people
are criminals for legitimately circumventing DRM.  If you were one of
the unhappy customers who'd purchased a lot of "Microsoft Plays for
sure" DRM'd music from Rhapsody, and then upgraded your device to a
Zune only to find that Microsoft and the Zune no longer support "Plays
for sure" then you'd be justifiably furious.  If you attempted to
unlock your music to allow it to play on the Zune, then you'd be a
criminal.  I urge you to look into the EUCD/DMCA if you don't believe
me.

> Surely the use of a password system implies that everyone else wants
> to read your email? Well, no it doesn't but it is based on the
> pragmatic realisation that there probably are people who will read
> your email unless you put in measures to stop them/slow them down.
> Hence, security. Unfortunately, getting your security measure to
> discriminate between trustworthy people and non-trustworthy people is
> quite difficult, hence, non-discriminatory security like passwords
> and DRM. They are protecting their assets just as you protect yours.
> Up to them. If you don't like it, produce some music and give it away
> free or set up a band and play their music in private.

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.

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.

> Freedom is a choice and not a dogma to be imposed on others.
>
> Iain

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

(And.... setting up your own band just to listen to music isn't a choice!).

Also be careful not confuse Freedom with Price.

--
Rick Moynihan
rick.moynihan at gmail.com
http://sourcesmouth.co.uk/