Posted on 06/01/2011 5:54:22 AM PDT by ShadowAce
I want to preface this entry by stating something very important to me and my world. I am a writer. Not just a writer of technical documentation, how-tos, and other sundry articles, but a writer of fiction. I currently have three published books (you can find them in both paperback and ebook format on Amazon and Barnes & Noble) and, I get the argument on both sides of the DRM fence.
What’s DRM? Simple. Digital Rights Management (DRM) is a term for access control technologies that are used by hardware manufacturers, publishers, copyright holders to limit the use of digital content and devices. In other words, I have created a piece of digital content and I want to ensure it is clear who the holder of the copyright is, but also that I get paid for the content I have created.
As you might well know, this is in direct conflict with the open source ideology that declares information was meant to be free. This ideology, of course, is counterproductive to those who need to make a living from their content. I, being one of those who need to make a living from my digital content, want to take advantage of technologies that will ensure I am paid for my work. And why not? I have put in thousands of hours, even paid for professional editors, in order to complete the work I have published.
But, being an advocate of Linux and open source, there is a conflict of interest. Actually, there is a bit of a disconnect between those that want to take advantage of DRM and those that want to abolish DRM. Many within the Linux community (even developers) refuse to include DRM software on the Linux platform. This, unfortunately, causes problems. One of the biggest, current, issues is the inability to play Netflix streaming content on Linux. This is directly caused by the lack of DRM on the platform. Should Linux adopt DRM, Netflix would probably come shortly after.
What strikes me as strange is that (1) Linus Torvalds himself has come out to say Linux should adopt DRM and (2) DRM is not trying to make proprietary any software or keep anyone from having the software they know and love. The only thing DRM wants to do is protect the digital content created by writers, musicians, artists, and the like. There is no evil empire at work, there is no desire to cripple an open source system. There is only a desire to protect the rights and income of the creators of the work.
I, for one, would gladly accept DRM on my Linux system, because I fully understand why it exists and why it is needed. As an artist, I wholeheartedly am against piracy. Personally, I only download content I have paid for — I want the artist to make their buck! And you should as well. Of course, this brings about an issue that is also at the heart of this matter. There are certain industries, such as the music industry, that is less than, shall we say, above board.
The music industry people are the slave laborers of artistry. Musicians get such a small portion of the sales of a CD it’s almost tragic — no, it is tragic. I was listening to an interview with David Lee Roth, a few years ago, when he mentioned that of the sales from a single Van Halen CD, the band splits about a dollar. We’re talking about a band that, at one time, was the greatest selling stadium band of all time. We’re not talking Hootie and the Blowfish — this is Van, freakin’ Halen. $1.00. One hundred pennies. Who got the bulk of that sale? The music industry. That’s infuriating…so I get why the revolt against DRM began. And, to be honest, the business end of the music industry hasn’t changed one iota. Fortunately, there are smaller labels out there producing good artists. But those artists still need to protect their work. They still need to make a buck or those artists won’t be producing any product. I, for one, would not like a world without music, and books, and movies.
As I mentioned earlier, I get how this is in direct opposition to open source. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t room for both. Let me ask you this: How many out there will download and install the latest, greatest Ubuntu distribution and then, promptly download and install the proprietary video and/or wireless drives to make your system work as well as it should? You do that because you don’t want to have to settle for a desktop that is inferior to what it should be. But those drivers being downloaded are proprietary and that too goes against the very heart and soul of open source.
Everyone that reads my column knows I am not only very pro Linux and open source, but I am also for everyone getting their fair shake. I want the little guys to win. I want the mom and pop shops to flourish and grow. I want Linux to be the most popular operating system on the market. But I also want those that depend upon their creations for survival to be able to do so.
I ask those of you who think DRM to be evil this question: How could something created to protect the income and intellectual property of the creative artists be bad? And I am not asking that question as a statement. If I am one thing it is open minded. I want to hear everyone’s opinions on why they think DRM is a bad or good thing. Personally, as someone with a vested interest, I think DRM should be made available to the Linux platform (not forced…available) so that the open source desktop can enjoy DRM-enabled products like books, music, and streaming Netflix.
Share your opinion on this topic.
of the sales from a single Van Halen CD, the band splits about a dollar.
I'm guessing that "one dollar" was the same long before MP3's, Napster, or torrents. So that problem is the result of a bad deal that Eddie and the guys made when they signed the contract, and as far as DRM is concerned it's a red herring.
Van Halen's first few albums are 30+ years old now. Under a sane copyright law, they would by now be in the public domain.
Yeah, it’s worth a shot. Two years is an eon in Linux time. Every time I upgrade to a new version, I’m amazed at what they’ve done.
I run my Windows specific stuff in a VirtualBox virtual machine. I have one with a stripped down to nothing version of WindowsXP that does just about anything I need and it’s lightning fast. Boots up in about 5 seconds. The entire machine takes up 2.5G of space and uses 512mb of ram when it’s running.
Knives aren't inherently bad. But when you hand them to a murderer.....
Personally, I'm old school. When I bought a tape or record, I owned it and could do what I wished to. I could dub a backup, no questions asked, as long as I wasn't making more than one and trying to sell other copies. I still feel like that when I do pay for a song (which I haven't done in a while - more on that in a bit). I should be able to make what ever copies are necessary for me to enjoy my music... which includes being able to burn to my CD and have it on my laptop or mp3 player at the same time.
In all honesty, I have been so unimpressed with the main-stream music world for so long that I have stuck with indie music, such as Jamendo and Magnatune. Especially Jamendo, as it's free. No DRM is involved - this is a selling point, and I honestly have enjoyed getting gigs of music without all of the theatrics involved.
I think this is a great counter to the above article. The author asks why it's bad to protect content creators, when we are saying that the old business model just doesn't work anymore.
The beginning premises of the debate are just very different.
Shouldn't everyone ELSE get rid of it and stop putting themselves in the middle of a fight between their customers and third parties? I resent that I buy a product which then consumes PC resources I paid for to police my actions. If they want to police people, they should spend THEIR money to create technical protection on THEIR end of the process, but even then only if they can do so without inconveniencing legitimate customers or non-customers in even the slightest way.
It PRESUMES me at least potentially guilty and uses my resources (CPU cycles, RAM bytes and watts) to prevent me from doing something I was never going to do in the first place. I'm still waiting for my check from Microsoft and the RIAA to get reimbursed for bearing part of the cost of their war on pirates.
Another way to look at the same issue is to observe that Microsoft makes a product to sell to people. Any effort made to serve the interests of ANYONE but their customers makes them a bad vendor.
The problem is not with DRM, but with the copyright system behind DRM.
Way back when, the US created a law to insure the greatest benefit to the nation, business, the producer and the consumer. It was called the General Mining Act of 1872. Its intent was to “get America mining”, so that all Americans could benefit from the enormous proceeds of mining.
It was simple in concept. Anyone could stake a mining claim about anywhere, including on another person’s land; but, and here’s the important part, they had to “improve” that stake to the tune of $500 a year, or they would *lose* that stake, and anyone else could claim it.
The word “improve” meant either they *invested* $500 into the stake, or that they made a gross profit of $500 directly from it.
The Mining Act worked wonders. And America benefited from it.
Now compare that to copyright law. Copyright has been extended so far that it will long outlive content creators. And it is so flexible that copyright can be bought, sold and traded, so that those with nothing to do with its production can own it.
However, they do not have to “improve” it. For this reason, there are vast libraries of copyrighted work just sitting there, not available for sale or use by anyone but their owner. The nation, business, producers and consumers get nothing out of it. Its owners don’t want to be bothered to sell it, but they can prevent anyone else from doing so.
Now, if someone wants to create something and never sell it, fine. That is there prerogative. However, if they want to sell it for a while, and then just stop, and never sell it again, why should they have government protection?
Why should the government protect their “right” to *not* sell, or to prevent others from selling? This makes no sense. It does not stimulate creativity, it does not help the market, in fact it hinders the market.
So what should the copyright law be? Simply put: “Use it or lose it.”
Here is an example. Disney Corporation owns the copyright and trademark to the Mickey Mouse character, known around the world. And annually, Disney makes a huge amount of money from this well known character. And this is fine and dandy, and they should be able to keep this copyright and trademark as long as it keeps making them money.
However, Disney also owns the rights to their movie “Song of the South”. But because racers called it “racist”, Disney refuses to sell it anymore. Its last sale was in Japan, on Laser Disk. But because they own the copyright for the movie, nobody else can sell it, either.
And if someone converts a Japanese Laser Disk of the movie to DVD, they have committed an act of “piracy”. Why is that?
Solely because Disney retains its “rights” to something they refuse to sell. Because Disney has been given government protection over a product they refuse to sell.
Which denies that product to America, business, producers and consumers.
This is why copyright law, trademark law, even patent law needs to be reevaluated. I’ll note that of these, the most insidious might be those companies whose sole business is to buy patents, then sit on them, hoping to sue other companies that inadvertently use them in their own products.
They “toil not, neither do they spin”, but just sit there hoping to either demand huge royalties from those who *have* to use that product or procedure; or to sue those who invent it on their own, not knowing it has already been patented.
In other words, they parasite other businesses, hurting producers and consumers in the process. So why on earth is the government giving them a license to do so?
They've even published a bunch of their novels online for free downloads, and have discovered that, rather than decreasing sales for a particular book, posting them on the web has actually increased sales of the books, series, or author involved. How exactly does that work? Well, perhaps if you assume that your customers are mostly honest folk willing to give value for value, you do two things.
1) You introduce people to authors that they'd not have dropped $20+ for a hardback or even $8 for a paperback.If they like what they read, they are now likely to seek out that author and buy other works of his.
2) You generate goodwill with your customers. I know that since Baen first hooked me into the 1632 series, with their free download of their books, I've spent a lot of money buying others of the series, in hardback, paperback, and in the electronic only offerings as well.
When I'm looking for things at a bookstore, if I have a choice between two books that I'm equally interested in reading, and one is a Baen book, I know where I'll go because I apprecaite folks that treat me right.
I've heard (since I don't actually own one) that someone bought a Kindle, and a bunch of books on it. When he canceled his subscription to their service, he also lost all those books.
Seems like he didn't actually buy them--only rented them. :)
Amen. Nothing in the Beatles catalog has any business not being in the public domain by now.
We need copyright and patent reform in the worst way.
Buying without DRM:
2. Spending $Y with ample opportunity to recoup a portion or all of that cost, possibly profit, or be able to give the item to someone else.
It's really simple math. $Y has to be a small fraction of $X for it to be worth my while.
Yup. That's why you should always have local copies.
I've been creating a DVD of all the books I've purchased/downloaded. It's all set up as a website with links and descriptions of what everything is. Whenever I update the (local) website with a few books, I bump the minor version number, and burn a new ISO.
I decide to put the effort into cracking all my DRM-encumbered, I'll be able to breath a sigh of relief.
Not unless the DRM is open-source.
Took about 10 seconds to find a python script that will extract the key used to encrypt nook books, and decrypt the books. Awesome. I'll be converting all my books to DRM-Free versions tonight!
Whether software on Linux uses DRM is irrelevant. The problem is that Linux itself should never have DRM since it absolutely undermines freedom. But, Linux being open and free, it can undermine any DRM through modification of the kernel and drivers, intercepting any stream, so don’t expect much DRM software on top of Linux.
Not entirely sure.
...
I'll probably wipe it off the system and put something else on it.
Its my understanding that its still an option to install Gnome(shell?) from the repos. Can't confirm as I switched from 10.10 (or 04) to Debian stable. I did so mostly due to longstanding Pulseaudio issues but Unity made the choice an easy one.
I think your analysis is accurate, although I can see a company taking Linux and rolling their own DRM flavored distro, perhaps Netflix. However I think they would have to see an increase in home desktop marketshare first.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.