Here are some of my thoughts. Feel free to disregard all of them. :-)
On 07/07/2012 02:33 PM, [email protected] wrote:
I now find myself in a position that i wouldn't ever think i would be
in: I recently found that i am in favor of DRM (at least some form of
it).
Here's the thing: I would like to publish a monthly emagazine in PDF
format and charge a small amount for each issue, but i want to set a
password for it or some other mechanism of the sort in order to
prevent anyone from just copying it and giving it away for free,
wasting all the work i've done. Is this so bad?
Your goal in writing an emagazine is for people to read it, right? Or is
the goal just to make money? Your goal in making music is for people to
hear it, right? Or is the goal just to make money? Your goal in
writing computer software is for people to use it, right? Or is the goal
just to make money?
The answer to those questions determines the value of DRM.
If your goal is just to make money from those willing to pay for it,
then DRM suits your needs (but only to some extent). It's the very
thing DRM was designed to do: dominate the content so it can ONLY be
used the way you want it to (limited distribution, fee-for-distribution,
etc.).
If your goal is to get people to use the content, then DRM completely
undermines your efforts. It also encourages those people who want to
read it, but don't want to pay to read it, to break the law by making
illegal copies.
In addition there is the analog hole. A user pays for a copy of the
item and displays it on their screen, or plays it through some speakers,
or prints it to a printer. You then snap a picture, take a video,
record some audio, run through a scanner, whatever.
In such cases, DRM doesn't accomplish any of the goals it had.
In short, DRM only keeps those people who are already honest honest.
But those same honest people will likely donate to your effort (if they
find value in it) in the first place.
I believe "donate" buttons should be more prevalent. There are times
I've used a free software product to accomplish some great thing that I
was so happy about, I would've right there on the spot clicked a donate
button and contributed $1, $5, $10 depending on the thing. And I would
do this from time to time.
Maybe you're just viewing this subject from the point of big
corporations inflating prices and making contents inaccessible to many
people, but what about my case? You see, you can't impose freedom. You
can't say that with libre software people have freedom and that the
software users are in control and then restrict what the users can do
with the software.
By definition, DRM is about creating a monopoly. That's all it does.
Ever. It creates the legal environment forcing only those willing to
kowtow to the personal whims of the individual or corporation as to how
they can access or use the content.
DRM never does anything, ever, except create monopolies (and
subsequently encourage people to break the law).
You may argue that this doesn't contribute to society or that it may
even be harmful to it, but take teachers as an example: the work they
do is beneficial to society - should they work for free? That's not
freedom - that's exploitation. You might as well approve those slave
work sweat shops in some parts of the world, because they're "working
for the benefit of society".
Digital media is unlike anything in history. There has never been
anything like it. It is unique in its nature because copies are
essentially free, and they are exact. That has not been true of
anything else ever in the history of mankind. There was always a labor
involved in copying, and there was an alteration from the original
(perhaps an improvement, but the copy was always different from the source).
It takes some effort to produce the initial product. A person puts in
their time, talents, knowledge, skills, whatever. They create
something. And once it's created, it takes no effort at all to produce
100% accurate duplicates (a tiny amount of electricity, and an
application of the hardware and time a person interested in pursuing the
thing already possesses anyway).
The teacher example is different. She operates individually. She's
interactive. She can respond to new questions, new situations. She has
animation, a mind, can reason, adapt, etc.
The digital content, even if its' a video, even if it's an intuitive
learning program, is completely static and is conveyed only as the
author originally presented it. It has no ability to react as a person
does, but only as it has been instructed to do so, and only on the
equipment to which it has been instructed to execute. It cannot respond
to new questions. It cannot work on new equipment. It cannot do
anything other than exactly what it was programmed to do.
Digital work is completely different from a teacher.
LibreOffice3 Writer gives its users the option to export documents in
PDF format and set restrictions to the use of that document (disable
print, content copy, modifications,...) but those options aren't
enforced. If those options aren't going to be applied why give them in
the first place? I'd say this is fooling its users.
This is a good question. I can see the desire to have a form of lock or
key of some kind to indicate that the content has not been altered from
the original production. That way if somebody down the line gets a copy
of the work which still has my name on it, they can compare that version
to the official version I released (which has some kind of key
associated with it) to know whether or not the version they've received
has been altered. That way the integrity of my original work remains,
even if derived works have been introduced. I would actually argue that
this ability is essential. We see it in md5 checksums, SHA-1 hashes,
CRCs, etc.
This ability doesn't require passwords and locks, but can be a simple
number uniquely associated with the document, something that will
identify that document from others in some easy way.
That being said, PDFs are generally created for distribution, not
original content modification. However, there are times when only
certain people need to author content, the rest need to read it only.
Locks have purposes in these cases. It is to control access to the
content so a person can't (intentionally or otherwise) destroy a
previous work.
There are some uses for passwords, locks and keys, but they relate more
to protecting the author's content and integrity, of verifying and
maintaining the original nature of that author's work, versus any
perceived monetary benefits derived from creating a monopoly over the
content which cannot be altered, extended or incorporated into
derivative works. Especially in the digital realm. Once a work is
completed, it's there forever. It's able to be copied forever. It's
able to be used forever. It's able to be built upon forever.
The original author's work need not ever be changed or compromised for
billions of derivative works to be created from it. What the author
contributed to the digital commons will always be there.
In the previous given example about LibreOffice the developers are in
control - not the users. You might as well ban encryption altogether
or even passwords for log ins.
Not so. The user has the option of using that encryption, those
passwords, the locks and keys, or not. And giving users those options
gives them both freedom and power over the technology ... which is
exactly what the purposes of free software are -- to empower users to
use those things they want, if they want, but not to keep them from
using something they want.
There should be a more fair and balanced approach to these kind of
issues, from both parts: the corporations who support DRM but that do
so trying to impose draconian measures on users and the defenders of
freedom that, sometimes, forget the real significance of that word.
It doesn't work like that in practice. Why? Because corporations have
a vested interest in owning monopolies. They have poured 100s of
millions of dollars into campaigns to get laws passed which grant them
monopolies over data, services, portions of the EM spectrum, and all
manner of other things. They are not in pursuit of what's right, fair,
best for people, best for the environment, societies, long terms goals
of humanity. Their pursuits are of one interest only: power (which
equates also to money).
All DRM *EVER* does is create a monopoly. It never does anything else.
And corporate monopolies are just not good things for anybody. Ever.
They are only good at making the owning author of the monopoly content
rich. But they do so at everybody else's expense.
Monopolies are evil. DRM only creates monopolies. DRM is, therefore, evil.
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
