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

[Rick Moynihan]

2008/10/14 Iain Barnett <iainspeed at gmail.com>:
>
> 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! :)

Granted, and it was perhaps a little unfair to imply otherwise - but
where would the fun be in that? ;-)  As for gold pools, well, in the
context of this debate, it's a troll and not really a defensible
position.

>
>>  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.

True ;-) but, the law has criminalised a previous legally act
(circumventing DRM for legitimate reasons (i.e. fair use etc...)).  As
for Microsoft products, people aren't stupid for buying them...
they're just misinformed by the marketing that they're getting more,
when in reality they're getting less.

>>
>> 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).

I think we're just going to have to disagree on this one.  Stealing
physical goods is almost always a worse crime than copying
reproducible goods.  Piracy of the tangible form and piracy of the
intangible are almost completely different beasts; so I don't think
it's beneficial to conflate the terms.

Is watching a TV programme whilst not watching the adverts theft too?

>> 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.

This kind of misses the point.  The passive nature of passwords is not
due to the location of the mail store, but due to the fact that I can
password my data without impacting you at all.  DRM is (in my terms)
aggressive because DRM vendors rely on having more privileged access
to my hardware than I do!!!!  For DRM to work, they are required to
shut me out of parts of my computer and impose restrictions on what I
can do.  I'd say that covertly occupying your hardware as a means of
asserting control is an act of aggression.

> 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?)

No, but DRM isn't solely about copy protection.  It's about
rights/restriction management, and doing that effectively requires you
to spy.  Windows Genuine Advantage has done this, as have others.

>> 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.

If you refuse to trust 3rd parties, then you surely must object to
DRM, period!  As anyone who truly cares about computer security cannot
believe in having a 3rd party manage your rights.  As Gary pointed out
(further down) isn't allowing corporations the use of DRM to rewrite
copyright law (and by extension other laws) as the EUCD and DMCA allow
a greater threat than that of copyright infringement?

Ultimately I believe we'll probably just have to accept the unwritten
laws of the Internet.  The Internet and computers are copying
machines.  I don't believe protecting the recording industry against
this and allowing them to re-build computers and the internet as an
architecture of control is the answer.  The internet is too important
for that.  Rather I feel that the only sane option is to bite the
bullet and accept that a few copyright holders may loose some money.
We didn't allow the scribes who used to handcraft bibles to outlaw the
printing press (though they tried).  Nor did we allow landowners to
consider aircraft flying overhead trespassers (they tried too).

Copyright is in need of reform towards the 'public good' end of the
spectrum rather than towards more control for rights holders.  This is
a conclusion that was even supported by the government commissioned
Gowers Report.


>> 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.

There will be no choice with DRM.  It's being engineered into hardware
and operating systems.  CD's will one day be obsolete, and with them
DRM free options for digital music.  DRM support will become a legal
requirement for integrating with computers and televisions, preventing
all forms of innovation.

DRM turns our culture into a permission culture.  If we want to use
some content 'fairly' then by your argument we will need to recruit
lawyers to fight our case....  A costly endeavor with little reward.
Indeed rights clearance like this has become a huge financial drain,
for little real benefit.

>
> 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.
>

Agreed.  And I don't really subscribe to Arrons view that healthy
debates are flame wars.  I also get a mild sense of devils advocacy.

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