DRM (a day against)

Mike Linksvayer, May 4th, 2011

Yellow banner -- May 4th, 2011: Day Against DRMToday is a good day to learn about Digital Rights Management, or more accurately Digital Restrictions Management:

Although DRM seems to no longer be the red hot issue it was a decade ago, it is still very much present, causing problems regarding fair use, lack of competition, privacy and security breaches, forced obsolescence, and more. DRM is often now involved in distribution of movies and books, to the great consternation of some librarians. Not listening to librarians puts our freedom and safety at risk.

A few things about DRM specific to Creative Commons:

7 Responses to “DRM (a day against)”

  1. One thing I can say for sure about the next 4.0 version of CC licenses is that the anti-TPM requirement should stay, or at the very least give us authors the anti-TPM (or anti-DRM) option. There is no point to CC licenses if they are not meant to be shared (at least non-commercially). DRM contradicts CC philosophy in this very important aspect. Refine the language, but do not take the anti-TPM (anti-DRM) dispositions away.

  2. I like the no-DRM restriction in CC, but I see one problem with it: There are almost no DVDs without DRM. Sure, it is possible to make, but I’ve only heard of that happening once, and it’s very unlikely that some big film company is going to make a DRM-free DVD (or Bluray for that matter). So if someone wants to use some CC licensed work in a movie, or as an extra, on a DVD they will not be able to.

    I’m not saying this means the restriction should go. It’s just something to consider.

  3. Overton says:

    Doesn’t DRM include stuff like not removing embedded attribution and license data from digital files etc? For example I always include contact details and preferred attribution in the EXIF of my images. Many others do the same as a way of mitigating the problems of the license getting lost as the work gets copied.

  4. Pedro, thanks for the comment; agree refinement is the way to go.

    Forteller, yes that’s one of the dilemmas. Possibly could be partially addressed with refinement, but in the end, if distribtuor completely tied to DRM (eg not even parallel distribution, which was a refinement previously dicussed) they can always ask for separate permission from the copyright holder(s). Price they pay for using DRM.

    Overton, no. Metadata (EXIF is an example) can contain information about copyright, license, and provenance, but it doesn’t have a “technical measure” that attempts to use your computer to prevent you from using the file the metadata is embedded in or accompanies. There is a tangential relationship in the US DMCA prohibits technical circumvention of DRM, but also prohibits removing copyright notices which aren’t associated with DRM.

  5. There’s a Japanese translation of this post at http://peer2peer.blog79.fc2.com/blog-entry-1790.html with correct license notice and attribution. Thanks!

  6. LoansMaster says:

    I do find it ironic that on this Day against DRM, I lost my e-licenser Dongle to use my legitimate version of Cubase 6.5 in my music production studio, and was left with no option but to turn around and drive back home as the studio was unusable without it. Unfortunately e-licenser has no temporary internet verification for such an occasion which I can assure you is not rare.

    In the music production industry there is rampant piracy of software, and plenty of dollars being made with cracked plugins so I understand the need to try and curtail this. But when over the top software protection actually stops me being able to do my job, it really does more harm than good.

  7. yay success thanx 2 defective by design 4 freeing our sytems and devices