About this Author

Ernest Miller pursues research and writing on cyberlaw, intellectual property, and First Amendment issues. Mr. Miller attended the U.S. Naval Academy before attending Yale Law School, where he was president and co-founder of the Law and Technology Society, and founded the technology law and policy news site LawMeme. He is a fellow of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School.
Ernest Miller's blog postings can also be found @
Copyfight
LawMeme
Listen to the weekly audio edition on IT Conversations: The Importance Of ... Law and IT.
Feel free to contact me about articles, websites and etc. you think I may find of interest. I'm also available for consulting work and speaking engagements. Email: ernest.miller 8T gmail.com
|

Category Archives
July 03, 2005
Blink ›
Goldman on Recent DOJ Warez Group Busts
Eric Goldman writes about the continued futility of the law enforcement fight against warez groups (Operation Site Down--The Latest Warez Group Bust (vintage 2005)). As I've written previously, the war against warez is ultimately futile. With sufficient enforcement, eventually we can put all of the warez traders behind bars, literally removing them from society to prevent their actions. Otherwise, the threats of criminal enforcement have had no measurable deterrence. Despite the apparent futility of criminal sanctions in preventing warez trading, I've predicted that the DOJ will continue to hunt down and bust warez traders to show Congress that it is taking advantage of the shiny new criminal copyright infringement laws that Congress keeps handing it. [links in original] From his paper The Challenges of Regulating Warez Trading: While the enemy has suffered a few casualties in Congress war against warez, there has been no victory, and it will never come. No quantum of stiffened criminal penalties will change that result. Warez trading is about ego, prestige and reputation, and so long as intangible assets are fenced off, a group of enthusiasts will seek recognition for breaching the fences. In that sense, increased criminal penalties may counterproductively encourage warez trading by making it a little more daring and impressive. If the goal is to reduce copyright infringement, it may actually be that DRM is not only not cost effective, but counter productive. What sort of egoboo can one get for cracking something that doesn't have DRM?
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
June 25, 2005
Blink ›
A Slew of Articles from INDICARE
INDICARE (The INformed DIalogue about Consumer Acceptability of DRM Solutions in Europe) has a number of interesting articles regarding the copyfight from a European perspective: - Copyright - Complexity - Confusion - An interview with Till Kreutzer [German], editor of iRights.info [German] and a lawyer and partner in the "Office for Information Law Expertise" in Hamburg.
In fact I think that the basic approach of copyright needs rethinking. - Personal Feelings About the Creative Commons Licenses - by Dr. Péter Benjamin Tóth, legal counsel at the Hungarian musical collecting society ARTISJUS [Hungarian] and a member of the Hungarian Copyright Expert Group.
For me, there is something fishy about the idea of Creative Commons (CC). The hawkers of this "solution" present the very nature of classical copyright as an alternative solution. And they forget to inform the creators about the side effects. - Contractual Balance in Digital Content Services - by Timo Ruikka, Vice President, Industry Initiatives at Nokias technology platforms unit.
Alongside copyright balance, the question of contractual balance will gain in relevance as consumption and contract practices change with the evolution of new services. Using the analytical distinction of "consumption use" and "copyright use" the paradigm shift is demonstrated between the "legacy model" of book/CD purchase and new services like iTunes music store and 48-hour online "video rental" services. Admittedly the new focus on contracts goes together with new challenges.
There are many more articles of interest at INDICARE and be sure to check out the INDICARE Blog.
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
June 23, 2005
Posted by Ernest Miller
A couple of days ago I wrote a post about Jupiter Research analyst and DRM-proponent Michael Gartenberg, who had grown so frustrated with Microsoft Reader's ebook DRM that he apparently circumvented the DRM, which is generally illegal under the DMCA (DRM Proponent Fed Up With DRM - Violates DMCA). Well Gartenberg has now replied, indirectly (My Last Word on DRM... Today). Here's my last word on drm. I repeat, I'm not against the concept and most consumers aren't either unless they bump into it while trying to use content they purchased in a legitimate way. I am against the way msft has supported folks using their Reader software and being locked out of my content. Some of you also suggest I may have violated the dmca when I posted my solution. I don't know. Honestly. It seems to me the program does nothing to the files, they are quite protected and must be run on an activated computer that reads them. The DRM is not stripped out at all. That's more akin to ouputting my iTunes files to a CD or a cassette tape. But maybe not. So for now, I'm deleting the files and the program and will inquire of folks who know more about the legal aspects. Perhaps, if he is promoting DRM, he ought to know a little bit more about the law that makes DRM viable for consumer goods. Hopefully, this will be a good learning experience. I hope that he will publish a posting giving his lawyer's take on the issue.
In related news, another good customer gets upset with faulty Adobe DRM (Open Letter to Adobe). Let’s be clear about this. I’m not stealing your software.
But you’re treating me like a criminal. Twice in the past few weeks, I’ve had to talk to one of your activation support reps because your online activation system is broken. It has several times just decided that I’d activated enough, and was suspicious. Never mind that I was reinstalling on a brand new replacement computer. Never mind that on the first occasion this happened, there was no grace period, and the software simply would not run until I talked to a representative on the phone, who, by the way, are ONLY AVAILABLE DURING WEST COAST BUSINESS HOURS. [emphasis in original] Read the whole thing.
via Darknet
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Digital Millennium Copyright Act | Digital Rights Management
June 21, 2005
Blink ›
More Details on Latest CD DRM
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
Posted by Ernest Miller
Michael Gartenberg, Jupiter Research analyst and DRM-proponent, has grown fed up with Microsoft Reader's ebook DRM and taken his rights into his own hands (MS Reader DRM Issues Solved... Permanently). While I'm still waiting for MSFT support to help me get back into the content I purchased for MS Reader (so far two emails and a rather fun 45 minute session with MS Tech support by phone, which is totally clueless about Reader. I was sent to Office support, Windows Activation and even though I kept telling them that there's no product activation code for Windows, my words fell on deaf ears). I finally took matters into my own hands. With a little help from a lovely free program called Amber LIT conversion, I was able to take all my MSFT .lit files and convert them to unprotected .PDF files for Tablet viewing and Word files that converted easily to eReader format. Took about a minute for each book. The program works with protected .LIT files but needs to be run on a machine with an activated and valid MS Reader. Since my old computer did have Reader on it, the process was a snap. This doesn't excuse MSFT. While DRM is a necessary evil, the notion of not being able to de-activate an older machine with a limited number of installs is user hostile at worst. Good case study for firms on HOW NOT TO IMPLEMENT DRM solutions. [link, ALL CAPS in original] Despite the fact that the Gartenberg ran his program on files he legitimately purchased and the program requires an activated and valid MS Reader to run, this still sounds like a blatant violation of the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA, 17 USC 1201.
It appears as if Gartenberg BROKE THE LAW! If we were to ask Jack Valenti, I'm sure he would say that Gartenberg is a THIEF!
The company that made and distributes the software Gartenberg used appear to be a BUNCH OF DISGUSTING HACKER PIRATES!
Or, perhaps, this is a good case study for governments on HOW NOT TO IMPLEMENT ANTI-CIRCUMVENTION laws.
Comments (6)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Digital Millennium Copyright Act | Digital Rights Management
Blink ›
DRM Mucking Things Up
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
June 20, 2005
Blink ›
Study: DRM to Be Booming Business
The Hollywood Reporter takes note of a study claiming DRM is going to be a booming business (Study: Copyright Protection Biz a Sleeping Giant). An exhaustive new study is estimating that the digital rights management industry will grow from $600 million worldwide in 2004 to $1.9 billion in 2009. After all, digitally delivered media that's so popular nowadays needs protecting. What an unproductive waste of resources. via PaidContent
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
Blink ›
Amazons 'Copy Protected CD' Label Not Good Enough Says CoCo Blog
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
June 16, 2005
Blink ›
DRM Proponent Frustrated by DRM, Again
Jupiter Research analyst and DRM-proponent Michael Gartenberg is once again having trouble with DRM (Microsoft Reader Locks Me Out... Again): Longtime readers will remember the last time Microsoft reader locked me out of my own content. Well, it's done it again. Once again Reader tells me it's activated and updated and once again, I can't access my content. Even more annoying is I should have at least one activation left (even though I activated the new ThinkPad on Fri) and now it tells me there are none left. I sent a note to MSFT PSS last night. Still no activations and still no reading on the new Tablet.
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
Posted by Ernest Miller
In the previous post, I discussed how the record labels' increasing reliance on audio CD DRM would be counter productive (Record Companies Intend to Make Criminals of Us All). There is another aspect to this worth discussing, however. The article from Pennsylvania's Times-Leader, republishing a Mercury News report, discussed the incompatibility of the new CD DRM and Apple's iPod and iTunes (Music Industry Eyes 'Casual Piracy'). Copy protection raises an even bigger problem for the millions of people who own Apple's iPod digital music player and use its iTunes software to organize their music and create custom CDs. Apple has refused to license its FairPlay rights-management software -- even to the labels. That means certain copy-protected CDs won't work with iTunes or the iPod without employing time-consuming work-arounds.
"They do not play on iPods simply because Apple has this proprietary approach," said Hesse of Sony BMG's copy-protected CDs. "We would be willing and able to put" FairPlay "on CDs in an instant if Steve Jobs would flick the switch and allow us to do that." Poor, helpless Sony. You know, Sony, the company whose logo appears when you look up the word "proprietary" in the dictionary.
It isn't that Sony is opposed to proprietary formats, it is simply that Sony doesn't like it when they're other companies' proprietary formats. But it isn't only Sony that is backing these CD DRM schemes. EMI is also using DRM. Now, this will have virtually no effect on copyright infringement via P2P networks, so why spend so much money?
I think one very good reason is that the record labels are beginning to fear Apple's lock on digital music distribution. After all, if even Microsoft is sneezing, shouldn't the record labels be getting a cold? See, DRM and Lock-In: Apple vs. Microsoft.
A very large percentage of the songs on most iPods has to be coming from ripped CDs (21 iTunes per iPod). By making this means of filling iPods with music difficult, the record labels are in a much better position to convince Apple to license their FairPlay DRM and let the labels have a little control and reduce Apple's ability to lock-in consumers (and lock-out the record labels).
We shall see what Apple's response is. Steve Jobs is not likely to be pleased.
Comments (4)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Digital Rights Management
Posted by Ernest Miller
Pennsylvania's Times-Leader republishes a Mercury News report on the increasing use of DRM for audio CDs by the major labels (Music Industry Eyes 'Casual Piracy'). What disturbs me is the way that the music industry is now framing the argument: The music industry considers the seemingly innocuous act of duplicating a music CD for someone else "casual piracy," a practice that surpasses Internet file-sharing as the single largest source of unauthorized music distribution. After fits and starts, the industry's largest players are taking measures to place curbs on copying. Note especially that "casual piracy" is supposedly even worse than internet copyright infringement. Gee, if Congress has to pass laws against P2P filesharing services, what sort of laws will be necessary to stop what will likely soon be called "the greatest threat the music industry has ever faced"?
Instead of focusing their efforts on unrestricted public distribution via P2P networks, the record labels are poising themselves for an attack on copying/sharing among family members and friends. This doesn't seem to me a wise way to attempt to set copynorms. I've long supported the idea of "sharing with friends, not strangers" as a way to reinforce reasonable copynorms. See, Larry Solum, Copynorms and Nesson's Koan.
People want to share music with their friends and family and they see nothing wrong in doing this. In trying to characterize such sharing as criminal activity the recording industry will only be undermining support for copyright as a whole (To Save Copyright We Must Reform It): The RIAA has taken the strategically foolish position that all filesharing is wrong. To most people outside of the ABA's IP bar, such an uncompromising approach to all filesharing is clearly incorrect. Most people believe that some sharing (particularly with friends or family) is legitimate, but other sharing is not. To the extent that the RIAA is not willing to compromise its position on filesharing, people will increasingly reject the idea that any filesharing is wrong. This is not a healthy development for those who believe that copyright is worth saving. The only way to save copyright is to reform it. But that is precisely what the recording industry seems intent on accomplishing: For consumers, it signals an abrupt change to the rip, mix, burn mania embodied by the 2001 Apple Computer ad campaign promoting the first iMac computer with a CD burner and software for creating custom music CDs. These new copy-protected discs limit the number of times people can create copies of music CDs or add individual songs to music mixes. An "abrupt change", indeed. The music industry doesn't seem to understand that it is unencumbered MP3s that are filling the iPods of the world ( 21 iTunes per iPod). "You can do with the CD you bought what you do with it if you're within the realm of personal use," said Thomas Hesse, Sony BMG's president of global digital business. "You can burn a copy that you play in your car or a copy that your son plays in his bedroom or make a personal mix. That's fine. That's the way people listen to music these days. If you attempt to burn 20 copies and distribute them to the kids who come to your son's birthday party, that's not possible." Um, no. Please, three copies? That's not going to cut it, even if it is only for personal use. I've owned 3 MP3 players alone (and I'm not a guy who spends a lot of money on gadgets). I burn new mix CD-Rs (whatever I'm into at the time) whenever I plan an extended road trip. I sometimes make mix CDs with a sampling of music I think is cool for friends, just to turn them on to something new. And I'm hardly some sort of music power user.
You know, by the way, that I bought that music expecting it to be available to me for several more decades. You think the "burn track seven times" is all I'm going to need for those decades?
All this DRM will accomplish is to encourage people to bypass it, to download the inevitable DRM circumvention devices. They might be illegal, but they'll be available on the internet. Or, it will encourage people to use P2P programs to download the music they've already purchased. And, once they're on the filesharing network, why not download a few songs they haven't purchased? After all, if the record companies are going to make life hard for them with regard to music they've actually spent money on, they might rationalize that they've earned some free music.
In other words, record labels will only succeed in encouraging disrespect for copyright law. Thanks a lot, you bunch of short-sighted morons.
via EEJD
Comments (4)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Digital Rights Management | File Sharing
Posted by Ernest Miller
Well, my last two posts have been about Macrovision's copy-protection, this one might as well be too. See, Macrovision Invokes DMCA for Analog Copy-Protection Technology and Mark Cuban Has Questions About the Macrovision DMCA Lawsuit.
Anyway, the copy-protection scheme that Macrovision provides for DVD players is called Analog Content Protection. Macrovision claims that, Macrovision ACP prevents or distorts copies of DVDs made over an analog interface to DVD recorders, PCs, digital video recorders (like TiVo, ReplayTV and Media Center PCs), in addition to D-VHS recorders (DVRs) and VCRs. By preventing copying onto digital devices, Macrovision ACP dramatically reduces the digital sharing of this content, including sharing among PCs, DVRs, and over peer-to-peer networks. When you don't want to call something a lie, you might use the phraseology, "it is, at best, highly misleading."
Well, the above claim by Macrovision is, at best, highly misleading. At best, Macrovision prevents some users from uploading new files onto filesharing networks. It reduces this initial dispersion of the files. Unfortunately, that is a pretty high cost for very low return: Speed Bumps on Your Car.
In this next paragraph, Macrovision demonstrates excellent use of qualifiers and half-truths. I shall annotate. Macrovision ACP is the worlds leading device-to-device analog content protection system [Thank you, 17 USC 1201(k), which mandated use of the technology], protecting over 4.5 billion DVDs for Hollywood and other rights owners since the formats introduction [Protecting them from what? The internet? Commercial infringers? It is interesting that they protect "DVDs" and not "copyrighted works"]. Macrovision ACP closes the analog hole on nearly every DVD player, DVD recorder, PC, and digital video recorder. [Nearly. In a world where reproduction is effortless, "nearly" doesn't count for much.] It is supported through a worldwide ecosystem which includes extensive licensing to PC, CE and IC manufacturers. [Why does Macrovision act as if legal mandates aren't the real reason for this extensive licensing, like they did it themselves or something?] In support of this worldwide content protection ecosystem, Macrovision has developed industry-accepted test and certification facilities used to support proper functioning of ACP on nearly all manufacturers DVD players, drives, and recorders prior to market release. [There's that "nearly" again.] Gosh these guys are good. No wonder they got Congress to mandate their technology.
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Digital Millennium Copyright Act | Digital Rights Management | File Sharing
June 15, 2005
Posted by Ernest Miller
Datamonitor is a "premium business information company specialising in industry analysis". They've recently released a report on DRM adoption that seems rather clueless, but will certainly please many of their clients (23 Million European Households to Share Rich Media Across Devices and with Friends, Says Datamonitor). Today much of the work on DRM is focused upon copy protection, from the RIAA and MPAA trying to sue consumers and outlaw peer-to-peer (P2P) networks, to placing software onto music CDs which prevent unwitting consumers from legally copying songs to their PC. But basic copy protection solutions are only one part of a DRM solution. Huh? What does suing consumers and outlawing P2P networks have to do with DRM, exactly? They might both be part of a comprehensive strategy, but DRM and fighting P2P aren't exactly connected at the hip, are they? "At present, consumers are wary of copy protection solutions and phrases such as 'rights management'. Partly because of their interest in free content, and partly because they do not want to be unfairly limited in what they can and can't do with content they have bought," says Healey. "Such a system, in which a consumer is an end-user as well as a node of distribution, will require content owners and distributors to radically re-think their marketing plans. It will also offer the consumer more freedom to do what they want with their content, where to do it and when." Yeah, it's going to take some marketing to convince people that taking away freedom is actually giving them freedom. It will also take some marketing to convince people that doing the distribution work for the publisher really makes sense. Interoperability will be crucial.
Due to the immaturity of the DRM market, and the fact that almost everyone is offering DRM solutions, suggests that there will need to be consolidation, and perhaps more importantly, interoperability between competing systems. Well, there is consolidation. Otherwise, interoperability is just a little problematic: A Perfectly Compatible Form of Incompatibility.
You can buy the report for $2295 here: Digital Rights Management: Selecting the Key Influencers of a Nascent Market.
via BillboardPostPlay
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Digital Rights Management
June 13, 2005
Posted by Ernest Miller
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Digital Millennium Copyright Act | Digital Rights Management
Blink ›
DRM Holding Back 'Connected Home' Consumer Electronics Market
The Industry Analyst Reporter notes a report from Strategy Analytics that DRM is holding back consumer electronics companies from entering a 144-million device "connected home" market (DRM Conflicts Delay Lucrative 144 Million Device Market, Says Strategy Analytics). According to the report, wider adoption of media-sharing devices will be delayed as long as content owners disagree between themselves on how they wish to benefit from DRM technologies. Technology providers, in turn, cannot develop a horizontal market for connected devices until major content providers have agreed on a common framework of DRM interoperability. [emphasis added] It's not about the infringement, it's about control. My other comment: Only 144 million devices? via Slyck
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
June 10, 2005
Blink ›
463 Communications Looks at CDT's Copyright Policy Paper
463 Communications takes a look at CDT's new copyright policy paper and the blogospheric reaction (Bridging the Digital Content Divide). STILL, what is lost on many outside of Washington, is that this is not always about reality (especially a reality seen through the prism of technologists), its about politics. And, and as hard as it is for some to recognize, the center simply wins in business policy debates (especially on an issues that isn't naturally partisan). CDT is working in a Washington environment that is vastly different from Silicon Valley's or or any tech-savvy center. Put simply and wrong or right, most members of Congress (Democrats and Republicans) believe that P2P equals theft. Many also understand that technology mandates don't work. Still, without reinforcement from those in the tech industry, current theft could lose to possible, unknown innovations. See also, CDT's David Sohn respond to Freedom to Tinker's criticisms: Comments on CDT Closes Eyes, Wishes for Good DRM.
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
Posted by Ernest Miller
Yesterday, C|Net News ran a story I initially didn't pay much attention to about Microsoft potentially jumping into a subscription music service (Microsoft Planning Music Subscription Service). Yawn. Who isn't?
So, I didn't even read the story. Luckily for me, Good Morning Silicon Valley did (Psst, Kid, You Really Gotta Try Some of This WMA. First Taste is Free.). News.com reports that Microsoft, long envious of Apple's iTunes storefront and its grip on the digital music market, is planning an iTunes exchange, a service that would enable us to download a Microsoft-formatted version of any song we've purchased from the iTunes Store. Well, that would be quite a trick. This is where the DRM really hits the road.
Look at it from Microsoft's point of view. Every song you purchase from iTunes with Apple's proprietary, DMCA-protected DRM is one more bit of lock-in to Apple. When you've got a hundred or two hundred or more of your favorite (let's face it, you buy your favorites first) songs in iTunes format, you've got some significant lock-in in the form of very high switching costs. Just the way Steve Jobs likes it.
And that lock-in is growing at a rate of millions of songs every month.
What is a would-be player in the digital music distribution world to do? One option, of course, is to do what Microsoft apparently plans to do, which is pay an unknown sum (but likely rather substantial ) to let people download (again) music they've already purchased from Apple. There is the mechanical license, of course. And you don't think the artists and recording companies are going to let the music publishing companies make money and they don't, do you? This is going to be expensive. Microsoft can probably afford it, now, before digital downloading really takes off. Can you say "barrier to entry"? I knew you could.
Of course, it remains to be seen whether Apple will make it easy for Microsoft to pull such a switch or not. I imagine that, if they did, they would expect require Microsoft to do the same. Although Apple probably will cooperate with Microsoft as much as they did with Real (Apple Gets Real Serious About Harmony).
In any case, how many times do you think this game of downloading again, and again, and again can go on? We're going to see some consolidation pretty darn quick. At least for now, as the players try to capture market share at all costs, consumers will probably be okay. If one of the music services goes out of business, their customers will almost certainly be picked up with a generous transfer by one of the other services (most likely Microsoft, since they'll most likely be the ones behind the DRM).
One of the scary things is, of course, that we will no longer have the current oligopoly of the music industry, but a duopoly of DRM camps. And once you've settled into lock-in with one DRM provider for music, are you going to choose another for movies, or television? Ultimately, we are probably looking at a duopoly for all mass-produced multimedia content.
And this is supposed to be good for artists, right?
Comments (10)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Digital Millennium Copyright Act | Digital Rights Management
Blink ›
Too Many Competing Interests for Monolithic DRM to be Successful
Jonathan Peterson has a short piece on why the DMCA is not about copyright infringement, but about preventing compeition and, more importantly, why this won't work (Why Open Computing Will Beat Closed Media). DRM has nothing to do with protection from piracy and everything to do with protection from competition - and that is a losing battle. The record companies cant manage to agree on standards for DRM. Even if [they] did agree, consumer electronics companies would want their share for helping to lock in the content and telcos would want a slice for carriage. Multiply by hundreds of different regulatory environments worldwide, and is it clear that a monolithic, secured, un-hackable Medianet cannot be created. [emphasis in original] Perhaps, but it sure can cause a heck of a lot of trouble. It doesn't have to be 100% effective in order to seriously impact free speech.
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
Blink ›
Who Wouldn't Want to be Pre-Breakup AT&T
A couple of days ago, on Wednesday, BoingBoing linked (Savage, Brilliant Essay on DRM) to another anti-DRM piece from LinuxJournal (EOF - If You Don't Believe in DRM, It Can't Hurt You). It's an okay article, but it ended with a strange scenario, And when even a PC operating system can be an 'essential facility' to be regulated on antitrust grounds, DRM that actually worked would be too much power for governments to let anyone else have. Win the DRM war, and the prize is becoming a regulated industry like the pre-breakup AT&T. Well, the pre-breakup AT&T was a very profitable and safe business to be in for several decades. What company wouldn't want to step into AT&T's pre-breakup shoes? Beats having to compete.
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
June 09, 2005
Posted by Ernest Miller
Earlier this week I noted that the Supreme Court would not be hearing the Lexmark v. Static Control case (Supreme Court Rejects Lexmark's DMCA Appeal). Lexmark had been hoping to the use the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's anti-circumvention provisions to prevent third-parties from refilling used toner cartridges. A similar case, Chamberlain v. Skylink, involving third-party garage door opener remotes has also been rejected by the courts (this one on quite flimsy grounds - Judge Asserts Pseudo Distinction to Preserve DMCA).
Where is the outrage from DMCA proponents?
Many of the arguments for supporting the DMCA seem exceedingly applicable to the world of Lexmark and Chamberlain. So why isn't there a big movement on their behalf?
For example, one often hears the argument that DRM allows different business models to flourish, such as those based on price discrimination (This Summer's Horror Flick: "It's from the Federal Government, and It's Coming to Help Us"): Imagine three customers. A wants a CD for his home stereo. B wants an extra copy to play in his car as well. C wants both of those uses, plus another copy on his iPod. A logical structure that would benefit all would be three different prices, say, $12 for A, $14 for B, and $16 for C.
Under the theory of H.R. 107, [an anti-DMCA bill] this structure is not possible. All three customers must receive the same package of rights, and all must be charged the same price. This means the price will wind up somewhere in the middle, probably around $14. A is not allowed to say: "Hey, I only want one use; how about giving me a price break?" C is happy, of course, since he gets subsidized by A, which may show that the constituents for this bill are rich yuppies who can afford $500 iPods and like being subsidized by those who are less well off.
Of course, as a result, some As will be priced out of the market, so the cost of the CD will rise further, which will price some Bs out, and so on. Price will reach an equilibrium, but at the cost of significant loss of consumer benefit. Okay. Let's assume arguendo that this is a valid argument. Why isn't it valid for Lexmark as well? Wasn't this precisely what Lexmark was trying to achieve with its pricing structure for toner cartridge refills? Why isn't this argument valid for Chamberlain? Some people don't need to buy replacement garage door opener remotes. Without a DMCA that protects Chamberlain's business model, these people will have to pay more for their garage door openers.
How many business models are being squelched because the supporters of the DMCA don't seem to care about the Lexmarks and Chamberlains of the world?
Comments (1)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Digital Millennium Copyright Act | Digital Rights Management
June 08, 2005
Blink ›
Two Positive Reviews of CDT's Report
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
Blink ›
How to Avoid the Upgrade into HD DRM Trap
C|Net News has an image of a display that "will soon be able to squeeze high-definition quality out of non-HD sources such as cable, DVD and VHS" (Photo: High-Definition Simulators). If true, I wonder how much this will decrease demand for DRM-encumbered true HD?
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
Blink ›
Apple as Media Platform Company
Alan Wexelblat speculates about one strategic possibility for Apple's move to Intel chips (A Copyfighter's View of the Apple Move to Intel). Apple's switch in hardware platforms is about the transformation of Apple into a media company. It will probably still make hardware, and it will probably still dominate certain niche markets, but those markets will be ones that matter in Hollywood, like digital editing. Seems plausible, though I would say media platform company, and I'm not sure that it drove the switch to Intel. Still, interesting ideas. See also, It's Not About the DRM, Stupid.
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
Blink ›
Felten on CDT's Report
Below, I reviewed CDT's new copyright policy report (CDT's 'Balanced Framework' for Copyright Completely Unbalanced). Ed Felten thinks I am too harsh on the report, but also thinks CDT neglected the fact that we are all content creators now (CDT Closes Eyes, Wishes for Good DRM). What they really mean, of course, is that some producers are more equal than others. Those who are expected to sell a few works to many people or, given the way policy really gets made, those who have done so in the recent past are called producers, while those who produce the vast majority of new copyrighted works are somehow called consumers. Read the whole thing.
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
June 07, 2005
Posted by Ernest Miller
The Center for Democracy and Technology has released a report today arguing on behalf of a balanced approach to copyright enforcement, a carrot and stick (CDT Proposes Balanced Framework for Online Copyright Protection). via Constitutional Code, which has many worthwhile comments
Read the 14-page report: Protecting Copyright and Internet Values: A Balanced Path Forward: Version 1.0 Spring 2005 [PDF].
Note: I've long favored the carrot and stick approach. See this interview with GrepLaw in September, 2003 (Ernest Miller on DRM, Privacy and Hemingway). (You know, I think my answers stand up to the test of time pretty well.)
However, I think the CDT report favors the stick a bit much, treats citizen/creators as mere consumers, doesn't consider structural reform of copyright law, and doesn't provide much in the way of a carrot, among other flaws.
Read on for a more detailed take on the report...
...continue reading.
Comments (3)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcast Flag | Copyright | Digital Millennium Copyright Act | Digital Rights Management | File Sharing | Freedom of Expression | INDUCE Act
June 06, 2005
Blink ›
Same Day Apple Special
A Whole Lotta Nothing has one of the best lines on Apple's announcement of a switch to the x86 architecture (Dear Apple...): I figure it's just a matter of hours after the first intel-mac rolls off the line before we realize exactly what keeps us from running OS X on any cheap PC. I suspect whatever hardware or software dongle limits this will be thwarted the same day.
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
Posted by Ernest Miller
Earlier, I responded to Prof. Michael Madison's conjecture about the distinction between a "licensed" work and one with built-in DRM. Basically, I didn't get the distinction (DRM: Add On or Integral Part?). Madison has replied, trying to clarify his point (Tom Waits and Creative Commons). Theres nothing in copyright law (even pre-DMCA copyright law) that says that the author cant produce, and sell, a thing characterized as a DRM-enabled-CD. You cant license a book, but so far as I know, and aside from vague prohibitions on equitable servitudes in chattels, theres no clear rule holding that you cant sell a restricted use book. I still don't get it. What is the difference between a "restricted use book" and a licensed book as far as copyright is concerned? You can embed technical protections in a book, for example, using red print in order to thwart photocopiers. Does this, should this, change our copyright analysis if someone does photocopy a portion of the book? I would say, no, we're still looking at some sort of implied contract, covenant, negative easement, what have you and I don't think that flies with copyright, which should essentially exhaust all implied contracts regarding copyright. Suppose the digital download service characterizes the product that you buy (not license) as a DRM-enabled-CD. Suppose further that the point of the DRM is to limit playback to you and you alone. You can move the file from device to device, but it will play only on your devices (say, your iPod) set aside the technical reality that this wont actually work. Now, run the DRM-enabled-CD through the Section 106 rights, with the Section 107, etc. limitations, and ask: What happens when you loan your iPod to a friend? Are you liable for copyright infringement? What if the characterization (not license) for the DRM-enabled-CD is that the point of the DRM is to prevent quotation. You can do anything, except quote from the CD. Has this effectively vitiated fair use rights? What if the seller sold the one with the DRM for $1, characterizing it as the anti-fair-use-rights version and the one without the DRM for $10. Should this make a difference in the analysis if someone does manage to quote from the DRM-enabled-version? I don't think it should or how one could successfully make the legal argument for a distinction, absent a contract. And before this sounds too fanciful and metaphysical, consider the Creative Commons license. No one assents to CC licenses the legal code versions of the CC deed purport to constitute a sort of CC-wrap, but that language is so far removed from ordinary CC license notices that it really stretches the shrinkwrap fiction beyond the breaking point. I cant imagine a court enforcing a CC license on a contract theory. So, suppose a user of a CC-licensed work violates the license. Does the author of the work have a remedy? Id like to think so. But I suspect, also, that the only legitimate way to get there may be to argue that the user accessed a CC-licensed work, no assent to terms involved, rather than a work. The question of Creative Commons license enforcement is a very involved one that I don't want to address right now. However, there is a distinction. Creative Commons licenses purport to give people rights above and beyond existing copyright law. For example, normally, reproduction and distribution would be infringement, but Creative Commons licenses frequently allow people to do this. On the contrary, DRM-enabled-CDs purport to take away rights that copyright law reserves to the public.
UPDATE 1000PT
Madison responds (More on CC and Things). With regard to Creative Commons: [T]hat depends on the relevant CC license and the relevant term. CC licenses give authors some rights that copyright doesnt most importantly, attribution/non-attribution rights. (Also, the commercial/non-commercial distinction maps only imperfectly to the commercial dimension of fair use.) CC doesn't give authors any rights that copyright does not. If you want to make fair use of my works, there is nothing that CC can say on the matter. However, if you wish to infringe copyright, then CC provides the terms under which one may do so.
There seems to have been a misunderstanding on some of the other disagreements: More generally, Ernie argues (I infer) that copyright law means that you cant design information goods in ways that defeat statutory rights, so my DRM-limited-CD is no different, really, than a book wrapped with a no fair use label (my simplifying example, not his). That's not what I'm arguing at all. It should be perfectly legal to sell DRM-encumbered books, CDs, what have you. However, it should be just as perfectly legal to circumvent these restrictions. There might be exceptions, antitrust is one possibility, copyright misuse another, but in general, I have nothing against DRM-encumbered items. I oppose legally enforcing that DRM.
Comments (2)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Copyright | Digital Millennium Copyright Act | Digital Rights Management
Blink ›
DRM: Add On or Integral Part?
Writing about the royalties lawsuit involving Tom Wait's music, which I've written about (here and here), Prof. Michael Madison considers the distinction between DRM as add on and DRM as integral part of a product (Downloads and Licenses). iTunes downloads come with DRM. So, given the accompanying DRM, if were buying the download, what we buy isnt really the equivalent of a CD or vinyl. And its not recording + DRM, either. DRM is integral, rather than a legal or technical add-on. Its designed in. The DRM-limted-iTunes-download is a new and different thing, not the equivalent of a CD but the equivalent of a DRM-limited-use-CD. I don't see the distinction. Is there some contract involved? If not, why can't I do whatever I want to do with the recording, so long as it doesn't violate copyright law?
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
June 05, 2005
Blink ›
Apple + Intel = Trusted Computing?
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
June 01, 2005
Blink ›
Yet Another CD DRM Attempt - Yawn
Why do they even bother? Are they so cash rich they can afford to waste money this way? WIRED carries a Reuters wirestory about yet another attempt to add DRM to CDs (BMG Cracks Piracy Whip). These sort of systems will never work without totally breaking the whole Red Book Audio thing. Look, if you don't like the fact that CDs don't have DRM, then stop supporting them. If it is really such a big concern then push the switch.
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
May 30, 2005
Blink ›
Yahoo! Music Hacked Already?
Chapman Information Services reports that they have discovered a flaw in Yahoo! Music that would permit people to download songs without paying for them (Security Problems During Yahoo Music Beta). "For a savvy Internet user, the flaws in this music system could make it easier to download the music for free than it is to pay for the same file," said Robert Chapin, President of CIS. Yahoo! has not yet responded to this report. via engadget
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
May 27, 2005
Blink ›
Intel Embeds MS DRM Into New Chipset
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
May 24, 2005
Blink ›
The MPAA's DVD Hardware Police
Fascinating article in the EETimes a couple of weeks ago concerning the MPAA's investigation and enforcement of DRM requirements for DVD players (DVD Police Target IC, System Makers). "We are not just the heavy hand out there suing people," said Hunt [CTO for the MPAA]. "I have a couple of engineers on staff who work with companies proactively on next-generation copy protection and security architectures for future products. For instance, we have been working closely with Microsoft on their next-generation OS and other product plans." via EFF: miniLinks
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
Posted by Ernest Miller
C|Net News reports on a couple of initiatives by Microsoft to bring more security into the workplace (Facing 'New World of Work,' Microsoft Locks Up Office). Apparently Microsoft will be adding new forms of DRM to their popular office suite so that companies have more control over where their internal documents can go. Strangely, the article never bothers to ask whether this technology will have an open protocol or will be used to lock in customers as it locks up documents.
The article also discusses a new, corporate form of IM that is subject to centralized control by the corporation: "What happened is the dynamic of IM changed when people knew it was being logged," Greifeld said. But both Capossela and Greifeld said that the change is not necessarily a bad thing.
"For us, the value of instant messaging isn't the sideshow where people get to have private conversations," Capossela said. "The value of instant messaging is the ability to connect with somebody absolutely real-time and to have that quick burst back and forth." Privacy is such an antiquated concept.
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Digital Rights Management | Open Standards | Privacy | Security
May 23, 2005
Blink ›
Someone Should Have a Talk with Dave Matthews
A VC takes the Dave Matthews Band to task for the DRM on their latest album (How Not To Treat Customers): I really have to wonder who is advising Dave Matthews on this stuff. He has a rabid fan base, the kind that the Greatful Dead had. And yet he is adopting bad practices on the digital side. He puts DRM on his CDs. And his music isn't widely available on digital music services like Rhapsody. Someone should have a talk with him about this stuff.
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
May 22, 2005
Blink ›
DRM Nightmare
Jenny Levine goes through DRM H-E-Double Hockeysticks (MovieLink Update): The movie I downloaded from MovieLink and tried to watch on my laptop expired without me ever watching it because Microsoft still hasnt been able to figure out why the digital rights management software wont authenticate the movie playback software. The MS support rep is still working with me via email, but I think hes stumped and cant reproduce the problem in order to try troubleshooting it. Be sure to read her first post on this issue as well: Why DRM Sux (Redux). Isn't it a wonder DRM'd future we can look forward to?
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
May 13, 2005
Blink ›
CoCo: German Court Approves Printer Levy
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
May 12, 2005
Blink ›
Adobe's Digital Media Store Crippled by DRM and High Prices?
PDFZone reports that Adobe's Digital Media Store will soon shut it doors (Adobe to Shut Down Digital Media Store). Adobe spins this as due to the success of selling e-books through other websites such as Amazon, but an analyst has another take: "There aren't the same production costs involved, [yet] there is usually little or no difference in price between e-books and their physical counterparts. And the physical book format is highly portable. You can lend to someone else, while e-books are constrained by the devices they can be read on. It's hard to share content [through e-docs] as it is with physical books and magazines," Wilcox [a senior analyst at Jupiter Research] said. For his part, Wilcox said he is baffled that e-books didn't pursue a lower-cost strategy to increase their adoption. via Teleread
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
Blink ›
Translation of French Decision Making DVD DRM Illegal
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
Blink ›
Felten on RFID on DVD
On Freedom to Tinker Ed Felten postulates some ways in which the proposed RFID on DVD concept could be used to entice people to pay for DVDs instead of simply treating users like thieves (RFID on DVDs). Good ideas. Too bad Hollywood would never consider such an approach when they could overreach instead.
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
May 11, 2005
Blink ›
DRM: Who Do You Trust More?
P2pnet has an article with an interesting perspective on DRM ( Control through DRM): At the point where a copy might be made, only two entities have control: the owner of the device, and the DRM vendor. Copyright holders can never be given direct control and must always chose between which of those two groups they trust most. These DRM vendors are transnational corporations headquartered predominantly in the United States. Indeed. via Billboard PostPlay
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
Posted by Ernest Miller
A lot of folks have taken notice of the recent complaints by former RIAA head honcho Hilary Rosen regarding Apple's iPod DRM strategy (Hilary Rosen Laments Apple's DRM Strategy). For another example, see this post on Hit and Run: iRony.
Like my original post, however, many have concentrated on the fact that Rosen was decrying the very DRM that she had been such a strong proponent of. Let us not forget, however, that Rosen was an enemy of MP3 players all together. Indeed, let us go back to those halycon days of 1998 when the RIAA went after the Diamond Rio MP3 Player. See, RIAA Takes Stand to Protect Legitimate Online Marketplace.
If the RIAA had its way, there wouldn't be any portable MP3 players. The only portable players you would be able to buy would play only DRM restricted tunes. In her most recent article, Rosen claims that, "If you are really a geek, you can figure out how to strip the songs you might have bought from another on-line store of all identifying information so that they will go into the iPod." Not even that would be possible, legally, if she had won the lawsuit she launched against the Diamond Rio.
For a conspiratorial (though logical) take on Rosen's post, check GoldSounds (RIAA attempts to fragment online music business).
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Digital Rights Management | File Sharing
May 10, 2005
Blink ›
Trusted Computing Video Standard Moves Forward
ExtremeTech reports on a new video display standard, "DisplayPort," for connecting computers and other devices to display units such as CRTs, Plasma Screens, etc. ("DisplayPort" Could Introduce Protected Displays). Of note, however is that the standard also incorporates DRM as part of a trusted computing platform. Won't that be great? DisplayPort is apparently part of a shift toward "trusted" computing, where a trusted OS kernel would transfer trusted data according to certain permissions, displaying it only on certain trusted devices. Thank you, consumer electronics manufacturers and OEMs.
via Gizmodo
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
May 09, 2005
Blink ›
Hilary Rosen Laments Apple's DRM Strategy
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
August 30, 2004
Posted by Ernest Miller
There is a new law, tech and policy blog in town with a distinctly libertarian pedigree, The Technology Liberation Front. Read their introduction (Welcome to the TLF !): This is why this site is needed. We aim to report on, and hopefully help to reverse, this dangerous trend of over-regulation of the Internet, communications, media and high-technology in general. We will not hide our love of liberty on this site and we will take every opportunity to castigate those who call for expanding the reach of government into these fields. They have twelve listed contributors ( About Us). The more the merrier.
In any case, Adam Thierer asked a number of different people to comment on his recent post on the TLF concerning DRM (Is DRM the Devil? The Debate over Digital Rights Management, Trusted Computing and Fair Use in Copyright Law). It is a debate I've engaged in often, so read on for my response ...
...continue reading.
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Digital Millennium Copyright Act | Digital Rights Management
August 20, 2004
Posted by Ernest Miller
The repercussions of the Apple/Real conflict continue, and much can be learned from the various commentaries. Previous coverage here: What Real's Hacking of FairPlay Doesn't Do, Apple Gets Real Serious About Harmony and Will Real's DRM Strategy Succeed? Signs Point to "No".
Copyright shaman and law professor James Boyle has a commentary in the Financial Times attacking Apple's metaphor that Real "broke into" the iPod (The Apple of forbidden knowledge).
Derek Slater continues his excellent analysis of the issues (Real's Freedom of Choice Campaign and Price Cuts). He expresses as much surprise as I do that Public Knowledge is supporting Real's campaign for "freedom of music choice" (Public Knowledge Supports RealNetworks Campaign for Freedom of Choice). Slater points out that the real problem isn't that Apple won't license its DRM, but that the DMCA prevents Real from fully interoperating with the iPod without Apple's permission. Of course, you won't hear Real complaining about the DMCA.
I disagree with Slater that Real's pricing ($0.49/download) might be a turning point. I don't think there is a chance in hell that'll happen. The problem is that Real is losing money to the copyright holders with each sale at that price. Even if it attracts customers, I doubt they will be impressed when the price goes up later. The real question is what incentive this gives the copyright holders to reduce their licensing fees. The answer, I'm afraid, is none. The copyright holders will be happy with the additional increase in revenue, but they won't bat an eye when Real has to raise prices and lose customers. Real would have done better to spend the money on buying the contracts of some popular bands and giving the music away. This is simply a sign of desperation on Real's part.
Interestingly, Real's "Freedom of Music Choice" campaign links to EFF's complaints about Apple's FairPlay DRM (EFF: FairPlay: Another Anticompetitive Use of DRM) (FoMC: EFF on "FairPlay"). However, there is no link to EFF's take on Real's faux grassroots effort (Hypocrite, Thy Name Is Real). Maybe it is because of quotes like this: If Real actually cared about "Freedom of Music Choice," it would be telling its customers to burn the downloaded music they purchase to CD, then rip to any DRM-free format they like (includ |