DRM - how much control do we have?

I read recently a little bit on wikipedia since i wasn’t really aware of where DRM is applied and how restriction play a role in any form of media we consume.

I do find myself in the opposing camp of any DRM since it hampers with the owners right to do whatever he chooses to do with the piece of thing he bought.
Of course i was more interested because i like to game. But now i have to say, i give up on playing anything really on the PC. You just don’t know what gets installed.
Consoles seem to be the only choice since any DRM software is placed on that hardware.

Also i was surprised to read, that if you own a ebook reader, you are limited too like print a book out or an article.
Of course, you may be distributing intellectual property, but if i buy something i want to use it any way i like. That includes printing large passages of an book which is important to me. But i personally like to read the real books more anyway.
Ok, i don’t own a ebook reader and so can not confirm this. I just read it.

There is also the practice of watermarking files or include metadatas that can sometimes include your creditcard numbers and your name.
I am not sure how many people are aware of this. It was quite shocking to me.

In conclusion i have to pass on anything digital distributed that has any form of DRM lock.

My findings are not new, but its an eye opener and seeing other operation systems in a different light.
Music got to a certain degree more liberated but movies are very heavily restricted. One of the reasons i just don’t buy anything anymore.

But i would like to invited my fellow penguins to talk about it. Maybe we have different perspectives and can share these.

Btw. i can imagine one place where DRM can play a role which is the co-operate world. It may make sense there.

DRM is a problem in a wider area than just computers. I recently bought a Sony Bluray player. Usually with a DVD you put it in a it automagiclly reads and goes to the main menu and off you go. In this case it often requires restarting/reloading/open-closing to get the **** thing to just get to the main menu (that isn’t DRM related just a **** annoyance). The DRM monster rears its head though when one loads a Sony DVD (IE from a Sony studio) into the thing. These seem to actually load pretty well but load to a series of adverts/warnings or other Sony inspired offerings which are impossible to fast forward or circumvent, and these are bought/owned DVDs rather than hired, inclusion in which I could almost understand.
DRM sounds pretty innocuous, and at face value many might say “fair enough, they’re just protecting their product” but, it has ramifications which we are only just starting to see.
Apple have recently patented a DRMish innovation of interactive advertisement, that is, locked into your bought and paid for from iTunes bit of music will be a DRM locked advert, which will intermittently interrupt the playback with its message. If that isn’t bad enough, to ensure you are listening to the **** thing it is interactive so after it finishes you must then do something (a series of button pushes for example) to show you have been listening, if you don’t your device, iPhone, Pod whatever will lock out until you do. Apple anal control and DRM combined leaves them one Death Star short of truly becoming an Evil Empire.

AFAIK DRM was originally introduced as a compromise between Hollywood and Microsoft to allow MS to offer multimedia features on Vista. However, implementing it involved making changes not just to software but also to hardware which created huge problems for hardware vendors as well as people who had no interest in the multimedia.

As has been shown since then DRM is fairly easy to circumvent and I presume that even the stronger versions which are now coming out will be circumvented in due course.

One problem with something worldwide like the Internet is that digital rights are different in different countries and DRM therefore infringes on some people’s rights by imposing rights granted in one country on people on whom legally they could not be imposed.

I think DRM infringes on my right a consumer. If i buy a book, i can do whatever i want with it. I can trash it, can copy it, can paint in it… whatever. But if i buy a book on a ebook i am more limited. That it is possible just to de-authorize you as a user comes on top of it. I just don’t have any control over it.
I don’t have a problem to buy any of it, but i want the control of whatever i’ll buy.
Since neither technology will last for 50 years, i might have to rebuy everything i already own.

If you circumvent DRM, i would assume you are breaking the law that is in place in the country you live in.

On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 18:06:02 +0000, JoergJaeger wrote:

> If i buy a book, i can do
> whatever i want with it. I can trash it, can copy it, can paint in it…
> whatever. But if i buy a book on a ebook i am more limited.

Arguably, eBooks are far, far easier to duplicate than the ‘dead tree’
variety.

Jim


Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C

On 2011-06-05 21:31, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Arguably, eBooks are far, far easier to duplicate than the ‘dead tree’
> variety.

Only if you break the drm protection, I understand.


Cheers / Saludos,

Carlos E. R.
(from 11.4 x86_64 “Celadon” at Telcontar)

On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 21:50:06 +0000, Carlos E. R. wrote:

> On 2011-06-05 21:31, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Arguably, eBooks are far, far easier to duplicate than the ‘dead tree’
>> variety.
>
> Only if you break the drm protection, I understand.

That’s my point, if DRM isn’t included in eBooks, it’s trival to “sell”
it without giving it up, unlike a paper book.

Jim


Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C

There’s a large selection of books in the public domain that you are free to modify, copy and distribute in any way you wish, including many classics. Of course this doesn’t include contemporary literature, but there’s much to choose from.

Free Books : Download & Streaming : Ebook and Texts Archive : Internet Archive

Google is trying to monopolize pd literature in its own domain, but for now it’s free and available with no conditions.

On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 02:06:03 +0000, chief sealth wrote:

> JoergJaeger;2349005 Wrote:
>> Of course, you may be distributing intellectual property, but if i buy
>> something i want to use it any way i like. That includes printing large
>> passages of an book which is important to me. But i personally like to
>> read the real books more anyway.
>
> There’s a large selection of books in the public domain that you are
> free to modify, copy and distribute in any way you wish, including many
> classics. Of course this doesn’t include contemporary literature, but
> there’s much to choose from.
>
> ‘Free Books : Download & Streaming : Ebook and Texts Archive : Internet
> Archive’ (http://www.archive.org/details/texts)
>
> Google is trying to monopolize pd literature in its own domain, but for
> now it’s free and available with no conditions.

Well, and don’t forget Project Gutenberg. :slight_smile:

Jim

Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C

If you think about it philosophically, it is a know fact that every technology once introduced can be abused in order to be harmful to society. That is the case of a gun that is meant for hunting and then used to kill a person. Same has been true for the nuclear power that was immediately converted to a weapon instead to something useful.
The DRM brings this with it, and the real issues are not only IMHO the fact that you are not anymore owner of the product you buy. The DRM owners just want to concede minimum rights, which by itself is already a declaration, implicitly they do consider you a delinquent and NOT a trustworthy customer. This probably because they are aware that the counter-value of their product is so limited that it cannot be justified any more to society, e.g. an DVD should have a very low cost (as it is a sunk cost technology) but still goes over the counter with a huge mark up.
The issue becomes for me very very troublesome for another reason:

  1. digital rights allow for the alteration of book passages and existence of works, even after the publication has been bought and acquired by the public. History can be literally rewritten for the masses.
  2. the product can be eliminated of the customers reader without their consent (happened already)
  3. the way ebooks are bought make Orwells 1984 look like a fairy tale when it comes to profiling and monitoring political, intellectual and what so ever interests
  4. DRM can (and will) cause a loss of the knowledge of humanity. Who will be able to decipher a protected content in 100 years from now?
  5. The TPM (trusted platform module) if useful to protect the bootloader of a laptop with trusted grub, may be used by regimes to inhibit installation of software that is considered to be in non agreement to the “public decency”, IP rights or prevailing political opinion.
  6. The load of showing one’s innocence when pirated watermarked copies appear on the net is discharged onto the user and customer (good by habeus corpus and presumption of innocence).

The list could be endless. And all this from an industry (like the content industry) that pushed through IP rights protections of decades (far over the lifetime of the artist) in order to protect the interest of the “creative”. LOL, THAT was a good one. While they are still segmenting illegally the market (try to buy a DVD in Japan and watch it while you are in Europe). Big surprise country code. So this is another example of why I cannot fake to be surprised that people thrive for software able to eliminate “DRM” software from products or that hack the technology itself.
And this is why philosophically I do not perceive the elimination of DRM measures as “illegal” as long as it serves to re-balance the aspects of ownership and fair use and does not serve to earn profit by selling the then copyable products.

There is another point i like to make.

Digital rights or copyrights in general preventing books to be shared.
Normally i would maybe give you a book i really love and want you to read. But i can’t since i will be a felon if i do. So why do i pay almost the same price for a virtual product i can not use in the same way as i do in the real world.

Btw. i tried Guthenberg but wasn;t able to get a book in german even though its available in english. Point in case is a book from Albert Schweizer. The book is over 90 years old, but a company in germany hold the right and Guthenberg will not try to publish it in fear of a lawsuit.
Isn’t it great to live in a free world.

As far as media goes i am not willing to use Blueray really. If it has not changed i assume you still ‘need’ to be online in order to watch offline.

The future will be more dire than it was in the past.

On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 22:36:02 +0000, JoergJaeger wrote:

> There is another point i like to make.
>
> Digital rights or copyrights in general preventing books to be shared.
> Normally i would maybe give you a book i really love and want you to
> read. But i can’t since i will be a felon if i do. So why do i pay
> almost the same price for a virtual product i can not use in the same
> way as i do in the real world.

Actually, with the Nook, you can with some books (there’s a “Lend”
facility), and I understand such a thing either exists or is in the works
for Kindle.

> Btw. i tried Guthenberg but wasn;t able to get a book in german even
> though its available in english. Point in case is a book from Albert
> Schweizer. The book is over 90 years old, but a company in germany hold
> the right and Guthenberg will not try to publish it in fear of a
> lawsuit.
> Isn’t it great to live in a free world.

Copyright laws can be weird from country to country - but at the same
time, if you held the rights to a book, you’d want them protected,
wouldn’t you? That’s what copyright law is there for (even if it is
messed up, and there’s no doubt room for improvement).

> As far as media goes i am not willing to use Blueray really. If it has
> not changed i assume you still ‘need’ to be online in order to watch
> offline.
>
> The future will be more dire than it was in the past.

I’ve not had any problems watching bluray discs on our PS3 when the
network was down.

Jim


Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C

Copyright laws can be weird from country to country - but at the same
time, if you held the rights to a book, you’d want them protected,
wouldn’t you? That’s what copyright law is there for (even if it is
messed up, and there’s no doubt room for improvement).
With all honesty Jim. This is a totally ideological argument of the IP rights faction that is not backed up anywhere. And since it is so plain and pitifully wrong I allow myself to make that point clear. The current restrictions of 75, 90, 100 years of copyright on works, after publications are ONLY made for the sake of the non creative. The fact of blocking free market through monopoly power imposed on the work of a long time deceased cannot be, in no circumstance, be justified by the protection of the creative.
And country codes, blue ray online checks, and all the other points concerning DRM are showing only how much the system is perverted. There are two big Asian countries. One “respected” IP rights in the last 40 years…and is where it always have been. The other did not give a good deal of nothing … and roars with 11 percent of growth a year. Now THIS shows well what IP rights are meant for. And it shows that in the end they go against the very country that uses it (or would you claim that our “well protected and ordered economics” are growing? IP rights can have sense and do have sense if they are justifiable for the protection of who is creative. However they contribute today to the destruction of the creative thought and to hamper violently innovation.
And I would like you to explain why in ALL countries (the EU IP rights has been recently amended to extend the protection of music to what I belief 75 years - of course to protect the interests of the dead creative) that use inexplicably long terms of IP rights (after lobby interventions) do show severe problems with growth. That argument of protecting “ownership” really does NOT hold.
Edit: and I forgot to mention. Any law and business model does hold only if it is subject to credible enforcement. This credibility is not given by DRM and DRM by itself was a system to mitigate the exclusion from the market of MS when it wanted to offer multimedia content. There one sees already how funny that got. And it finished with pirate software and back-doors installed by the software routines of some bigger Asian content industry causing a global security loophole. To protect? Just another useless arms race.

On the point of copyright, too many uses and miss-uses exist that do not make sense, but having said this, there is a practical and purposeful use of the same. Copyright of works for 100 years is a very valid use when such works pass on to copyright holders family through the proper legal use of wills and inheritance. Unfortunately, far too often, the ‘works’ is referred to in a too broad sense which can be interpreted far beyond the uniqueness of the ‘works’. Application of copyright in regards to the mnemonics of assembly language as it related to a particular processor was struck down and rightly so as it would have every programmer paying royalty on every piece of code ever made. In software circles there is an argument on both sides of the equation. One side feels all code and software should not be copyrighted material and fuels the massive piracy realm while the other side insists that exact or close to exact copy is theft to be rangled through the courts. We have the GPL in the Linux world as to know what can be shared, used, etc. but when it comes to closed source the community will always be at risk of creating blindly something that turns out to be too close or identical to what someone else has done.

Copyright of works for 100 years is a very valid use when such works pass on to copyright holders family through the proper legal use of wills and inheritance. Unfortunately, far too often, the ‘works’ is referred to in a too broad sense which can be interpreted far beyond the uniqueness of the ‘works’.
@techwiz: I do agree on the fact that there is a problem of a cut-off point in the delimitation of what is “work”. But I am uttermost doubtful about the point of 100 years of copyright. If this would have been true, the US would be without telephone today or would answer with “pronto”. Because it was, as we all know today, not Graham Bell that invented the original. So he copied, breaking IP laws and caused instead enormous growth. This is true for an enormity of inventions. Now, when it comes to the protection of intellectual works like literature: if I follow your thought, I would need a bit of your help. Could you motivate how to determine the right cutoff point. After all in economics you would define an overlapping generations model as a proxy to an infinitely living economical agent. Therefore wouldn’t it be right to take IP rights forever? Why would I deprive the third generation of the fruits of the works of their grand-grand-father.
What is the definition of “property” of an idea. The real problem, doesn’t it stand in the definition of WHAT exactly we want to protect? If it is property in the clean sense then IP rights of today make no sense. The IP rights should then be eternal and hereditary (they do not take away your house because it was build three generations ago, no?). Help me out on this point.

I am not a copyright expert or attorney, but when I was trying to copyright some technical writing it was explained to me that as the originator of a piece of unique work, the copyright if granted would survive 100 years from date of creation (which must be proved), or my death (whichever comes first). The exception was that if I specifically wrote a notation into my will, the copyright would survive from my death to the 100 year limit to the person who was the named inheritor. The person who is named as the beneficiary can not extend the copyright as he/she was not the creator of the works.

As for Alexander Graham Bell and the telephone, Graham Bell was the first to request a patent on the telephone and after some 5 years there was still no objection or counter claim so a modified patent was granted. In the modified form the telephone itself was not patented but the principal of how to provide communication was. Thusly, as it was stated in the patent, ‘anyone person or company that produces a telephone based on the principals must acknowledge Alexander Graham Bell as the original inventor but without royalty consideration’. Technically, not acknowledging Graham Bell could result in legal battles but I have not heard of any such challenge.

On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 04:36:03 +0000, stakanov wrote:

> With all honesty
>> Jim. This is a totally ideological argument of the IP
> rights faction that is not backed up anywhere.

It’s a perfectly logical argument. You might note that I haven’t said
which side of the debate I’m on - that’s intentional.

Jim


Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C

On 06/07/2011 07:06 PM, techwiz03 wrote:
>
> I am not a copyright expert or attorney, but when I was trying to
> copyright some technical writing it was explained to me that as the
> originator of a piece of unique work, the copyright if granted would
> survive 100 years from date of creation (which must be proved), or my
> death (whichever comes first).

i have no idea who told you that, but i highly suspect the person who
told you has no clue whatsoever, and was just beating his gums to hear
himself talk…

because, copyrights are not “granted” they are simply proclaimed…just
(correctly) mark your work as copyrighted, and it is

there is no copyright office (like there is a Patent Office) to review
the work and grant a copyright…

as far as i know it is good to the death of the author plus some
years…like 50 or so…but, it varies by country…

©Copyright 2011, DenverD. All rights reserved.


dd CAVEAT: http://is.gd/bpoMD
via NNTP openSUSE 11.4 [2.6.37.6-0.5] + KDE 4.6.0 + Thunderbird 3.1.10
Acer Aspire One D255, 1.66 GHz Atom, 1 GB RAM, Intel Pineview graphics

  • When your gecko is broken you have a reptile dysfunction! *

On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 17:28:27 +0000, DenverD wrote:

> because, copyrights are not “granted” they are simply proclaimed…just
> (correctly) mark your work as copyrighted, and it is
>
> there is no copyright office (like there is a Patent Office) to review
> the work and grant a copyright…

Actually, there are two forms of copyright: implied, and explicit. An
implied copyright exists on anything that’s created. You might file for
an explicit copyright if you wish to have the copyright be legally
defensible, at least in the US.

You file for a copyright in the US copyright office (yes, there actually
is one - http://www.copyright.gov)

Jim


Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C

On 06/07/2011 07:32 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> You file for a copyright in the US copyright office (yes, there actually
> is one - http://www.copyright.gov)

i sit corrected, still once marked an original work is copyrighted and
defendable in most countries without registrations in the USA office.

like the internet, the folks inside the Beltway wish to control
everything…we should pray they never do…


dd CAVEAT: http://is.gd/bpoMD
via NNTP openSUSE 11.4 [2.6.37.6-0.5] + KDE 4.6.0 + Thunderbird 3.1.10
Acer Aspire One D255, 1.66 GHz Atom, 1 GB RAM, Intel Pineview graphics

  • When your gecko is broken you have a reptile dysfunction! *