DRM, Copyright, and Fair Use

[Quietone]

Hello All, here's my understanding of DRM and related issues. I spent awhile working on it, and would love to discuss it with you.

As I understand it, Digital Rights Management was designed on the premise of protecting copyright. While this claim does have validity, the real intent is protecting the companies’ interests, I believe. Making an honest profit and covering costs is fine, being unreasonable and greedy is not.

They’re claiming that sharing with others, and copying for personal use, infringes on copyright. These claims of infringement and piracy have resulted in widespread restrictions.

Even before DRM, I remember there was anti-copying mechanisms embedded into products such as computer program disks, and music on cassette tape. This was around 1989, so I don’t think CD’s had been invented yet.

As a creative person myself, I understand the need to protect our copyrights, yet I also like to share others’ work freely, just for personal use; giving full credit, acknowledging the rightful ownership of what’s being shared. I have shared my stuff freely, too.

Although copyright notices include statements of, “All Rights Reserved,” people still copy and distribute other people’s work. We believe we’re doing so within fair use guidelines, giving full credit to the creator(s). Fair use laws, as I recall, apply to using other’s material for educational purposes, though it may include personal use also. Even parodies are considered fair use, I think.

Considered fair use, a music site’s members share chords and lyrics of established artists. Giving artists full credit, members state it’s sole use is for educational purposes. One page for a song by Neil Young was replaced by a takedown notice. I sent the link to EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation, eff.org). I think Neil would be happy people want to learn to play his songs. No one made any false claims; no selling or altering anything.

DRM has even affected blind and visually impaired persons, in their right to have alternative formats. Even reading books online has caused trouble; in one case I read about, a book club met in an audio chat room, and someone was reading to them. Somehow they got in trouble and it may’ve even turned into a legal battle.

Recently I read that Mozilla, under pressure, had to secretly embed DRM into Firefox. A spokesperson at Mozilla told EFF there was no other choice, despite a difference of opinion. This has saddened me deeply. All these restrictions do is encourage people to create programs that strip away the DRM codes.

The result of DRM and other anti-copying measures are doing more harm than good. I even read of situations where innovation is being stifled, in cases such as people improving on existing video games. Even trademarks and patents are being affected.

Many people believe the real solution is to allow open and available access to everyone. I’m sure there’s a reasonable solution that would allow people to still be able to make a living, and also make their work available under fair use. I’d love to discuss this in later posts.

The majority of us respect and honor the value and hard work of those who make and share them. Many are happy to share, only asking that we get permission first, and if granted, give the artist, author, etc. the credit they deserve.

The fair use issue has been debated long before DRM; the real issue, as I see it, is fair use.

 

[rubaiyat]

The Compact Disk came out in 1979.

Just as when Charles D¡ckens begged the American public to stop stealing his work in the 1800s and pay authors for their labor, most people choose to ignore the moral position when easy opportunity gives a cheap or free alternative. They usually rub salt into the wounds of the authors, as they did with D¡ckens, by vilifying them for bringing up the crass subject of payment.

btw This shows the massive and frankly stupidly hypocritical position Americans put themselves in when I can't even write D¡ckens' name without the nanny software used in the States turning his name into ****kens.

 

[chas_m]

I could easily exceed the word count of this entire subforum talking about this subject, but suffice to say that DRM is a far more complex subject that you're making it sound. I'm not particularly pro-DRM, but as someone who makes a living off my writing and performing and intellectual property, I understand the scope of the problem and want to get paid for the work I do, which sadly is what led to DRM in the first place. We are again in the world that rubaiyat talked about, where people have decided that the work of authors, musicians, performers, etc is essentially valueless and therefore can be freely distributed.

I strongly dislike the ham-fisted way some DRM has been implemented, but the creators need to get freakin' paid, or there will be no point in creating. Some smarmy hipster types have said that the "answer" is to tour eternally, or sell unpiratable physical things, or sell something else to support the thing you originally wanted to sell but instead people just steal.

You know what? That doesn't actually work -- well, let me correct that. You end up working for slave wages instead of a comfortable living. Overall, that approach doesn't work, though very occasionally creator can squeak out a meagre but sustainable existence on that approach. I tell people who advocate this approach "you try it and let me know how it goes." They very quickly realise that it's a ton more work for much less money.

So, because too many people just steal, DRM is a thing that has to be in place in some cases in order to ensure that the people who did the work actually get paid, so that they have some incentive to produce more work. You can rail at the evil studios/record companies/publishers for the nerve of wanting to make a profit all you want, but when you steal you're also killing the filmmakers/actors/techs, the musicians, and the authors. The evil corporate system takes most of the profits and pays creators little (oh btw welcome to capitalism), but pirates pay the creators nothing at all. "Exposure will lead to (profitable thing in the future)" is the modern day equivalent of "this won't hurt a bit."

My "solution" -- or rather, the best idea I can come up with that might possibly work -- is to forge more direct artist-buyer relationships so that people feel that the majority of the money they spend on a work is actually going to the person who did the work rather than *most* of it going to middlemen. That's why Kickstarter and Patreon and suchlike have worked pretty well, but there are limits to those things, and you rarely if ever end up rolling in dough with them. And that won't work for every creator for a variety of good reasons.

I could add in a whole section here about how if workers were actually getting paid anything like what they're worth in the first world, the economy and the ratio of ethical buyers to jerk-face pirates would change dramatically, but that's a macro-economic issue I don't have complete answers for or time in the day to get into.

I support the right of a creator to be paid for their work. DRM in some forms is really not a good solution, but some better option (that is actually realistic, I mean) clearly needs to be available. I think the secret of Apple's success with iTunes was that back when it had DRM, it was fairly loose -- it let the consumer do nearly anything they wanted with their files, compared to the other services. And of course Apple got the record companies to drop DRM entirely for music years ago, in favor of digital fingerprinting (which affects nobody *except* those who try to illegally profit from or mass-distribute the files). So there are answers that work for the majority of buyers. But it's complicated.

 

[rubaiyat]

You are obviously not a designer.

We have delightfully close relationships with our clients.

Doesn't make them appreciate it any more or think they have any less right to just steal it if they want, or simply not pay for it because it is all "fun" and oh so obvious, after we show it to them (no matter how much they fight against the design along the way).

 

[chas_m]

My post wasn't addressed to you (I agree with your previous comments), but was addressed to Quietone. Sorry for any inadvertent misunderstanding.

(previously worked as a graphic designer in the ad field for 20 years -- mostly national and regional agencies)

 

[Quietone]

My post wasn't addressed to you (I agree with your previous comments), but was addressed to Quietone. Sorry for any inadvertent misunderstanding.

(previously worked as a graphic designer in the ad field for 20 years -- mostly national and regional agencies)

I am sorry for any misunderstanding, too, and knew right away your post was meant for me. Please know I am all for protecting rights and people being paid for what they're worth and the hard work that goes into what they do.

Remember, I am a musician, I sing and write songs, which I used to perform, some of which are online. I'm also a writer and do simple illustrations, still looking into the best way to get published, while still protecting my rights. When I had websites, I designed my own backgrounds, too.

Many years ago I shared my ideas in a forum, and found one of my essays re-posted without permission or credit given. I mentioned it to the group, asked that credit be given where due, and that I would've asked for permission first. You can imagine how I felt when I first saw my post copied there.

I wish these companies would pay people what they're worth. The DRM issue is very complicated, I realize also, and I did my best to point out both sides. Your points are valid, and I agree how little value many people place on someone's creations. The idea of direct sales is an excellent one, too. You are fortunate to be able to make a living with your work. My life's dream was in music, but I wasn't able to make a living at it. Despite that, I still enjoy creating and sharing, but I still worry about stealing, too. When the subject of intellectual property became a big issue, I was deeply concerned, and still am. I have other skills I'd love to get paid for, too.

Chas, I understand the DRM issue fairly well, though I'm sure there's still much I need to learn about. in explaining my understanding of it, my original essay was much longer, but I felt it was too long to post here. There were a few details that were left out, in the interest of not being long-winded. Please remember, I didn't say it's wrong to make a profit, I said it's wrong to be unreasonable and greedy.

Many years ago I took a Music Business course in college, and learned a lot about the various aspects of the music industry. Whenever I wrote songs, I had them copyrighted, so as you can see, I took this very seriously, hoping it would be a career. There has to be a balance between who gets what. And what about fair use? Where do we draw the line between sharing, helping people, and getting paid?

Admitting I don't know everything about this, I'd like to know what the digital fingerprinting is that you mentioned? On a cassette tape I had, a few seconds before the song played, I heard some electronic sounds- is that digital fingerprinting?

Thanks for sharing your views. I love to learn and share, so, I'm always glad to know and understand the issues. If I make an incorrect statement, I welcome any corrections. Thanks again.

 

[Quietone]

The Compact Disk came out in 1979.

Just as when Charles D¡ckens begged the American public to stop stealing his work in the 1800s and pay authors for their labor, most people choose to ignore the moral position when easy opportunity gives a cheap or free alternative. They usually rub salt into the wounds of the authors, as they did with D¡ckens, by vilifying them for bringing up the crass subject of payment.

btw This shows the massive and frankly stupidly hypocritical position Americans put themselves in when I can't even write D¡ckens' name without the nanny software used in the States turning his name into ****kens.

Wow, 1979, that was awhile ago. Thanks for the info.

Yea the nanny software. Interesting story about Charles D. It seems vaguely familiar, too.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[cptkrf]

DRM also hits those who have no interest in pirating music and movies, or dumping their entire iTunes library to mp3’s so they can be given in mass to their friends.

The jury rigged HDMI crap that Hollywood convinced the government to mandate to prevent theft of movies at the client doesn’t work. There are about ten thousand ways to google up workarounds, or just purchase one of the spoofer boxes from abroad.

But, for normal users it goes like this. I can watch movies that are on my Mac Mini just fine, unless I decide to move over to the PS3 for some action. Works great until I switch back to the Mini. But now, since the connection has been lost, the hollywood hardware has decided that I am illegally stealing their works. So, turn off the TV or reboot the Mac to get the screen up.

Swap out the Magnavox TV for the Panasonic and the problem goes away with the mini. Except, that now if I switch to the Apple TV the screen is black again until - guess what? The TV has to be rebooted.

With the Western Digital TV box, the Magnavox HAS to be booted before the TV but on the Panasonic BEFORE the WD box.

And so on.

Now, the one upstairs for the wife, works fine. She can switch, turn off, on and anything without losing the connection. Sheer luck in purchasing.

No amount of surfing will allow you to google up hardware that works seamlessly over the HDMI cables.

Thanks Hollywood and Congress

 

[Quietone]

Yea they think everyone's a pirate. Hollywood has too much influence. They know how to work the fear angle very well. So sad. Thumbs down to them.

 

[bobtomay]

While most of us share your frustration...

HDMI cables are not the issue - the cable only carrries data that is provided to it from point a to point b.

It has everythhing to do with HDCP and in some cases EDID. link and link.

The issue of some devices needing to be turned on in a certain order can typically be blamed on EDID - the multitude of resolutions being used today, some devices not reporting correct EDID info and some devices not using the info they've been provided properly - this issue really has nothing to do with DRM nor any other content protection mechanism.