It’s Time to Expand Consumer Rights to DRM

I’m not sure why I’m the only one being vocal on the subject of consumer rights regarding Digital Rights Management (DRM), but I do know that some legislation needs to be set in place (and soon).

Why is this a legal issue? Do you really want the government telling corporations what products they can and can’t sell?

It does not matter what is the best product technically that the consumer would want. If Apple doesn’t want to sell, they shouldn’t be forced to sell it. If you don’t want to buy, don’t buy it.

Yes, beta was a better product then VHS, but would you want the government to ban the sale of VHS?

Do we want windows shut down because linux is a better OS?

If Sony wants to make mini disk products or a 12:24 ratio tv, more power to them. And most people won’t buy it.

I hear your beef and agree with you in many ways. Personally I don’t want DRM in any formt. I want the traditional copyright laws in place and I want to be trusted to follow them.

I think the route to go is to use the existing ‘truth in advertising’ laws. As I said in a previous post, most consumers think they are buying music with no restrictions on it, as if they were buying a CD. If the consumer knew what they were buying, I think you’d see folks head back to the CD market.

The last thing I want is for the government to dictate what products are best for me. It is a matter of principle.

Melvin, sorry to say, you just don’t get it. I have in no way suggested the government should tell corporations what products they can or can’t sell. And the same goes for having the government ban one technology over an other. I’m not sure where you’re getting these far out ideas. Did you read the end of the article to see what rights we as consumers should have when purchasing DRM protected content? I’m also thinking about fairness in computing… do you think it’s fair that Macrovision will not license its DeCSS technology (a form of DRM) so Linux users can play a DVD? What happens when HD-DVD comes out, should the organization who develops the encryption technology for that (again, targeted for the mass market use) decide which OS platforms or CE products are able to play it and which ones will be excluded?

All I’m suggesting is, if content producers can enforce and leverage the “The Digital Millennium Copyright Act,” we as consumers should have protection and gaurantees as to how we can use the content we pay for, even those that are DRM protected. In fact, there’s a bill going forward called “Digital Media Consumers’ Rights Act of 2005″ that targets copy-protected music CDs as “an unfair method of competition and an unfair and deceptive act or practice.” One other thing… can’t you see the benefit of having everyone playing ball by being on the same page (referring to having a set standard for DRM usage)?

I hate to say it, but I still disagree. Perhaps I don’t get it, but I imagine this has to more to do with our views on the proper role of government more then anything else. .

To me, I see the various media forms for audio and video (mp3, wmv, CD, minidisc, LP, 45, cassette tape, DAT, etc, only looking at audio) as separate products that companies are trying to sell. In most cases, businesses did not create the media forms themselves, either a 3rd party like IEEE, or a group of companies agree to the standard. Sometimes, a company creates the standard themselves and doesn’t share with anyone else, like Sony’s minidisc. An example outside of the would be audio world would be Apple computer’s products. The government did not step in and tell Sony that they have to let Pioneer build a minidisk player, nor did they tell Apple that they have to let Dell create a computer that runs Apple OS.

Please correct me if my history is wrong, but I don’t think the government has been involved in any of these except in the case of monopolies.

In the current case, only looking at audio, companes are coming up with their own variations of mp3 with some DRM attached, they can only be used in limited scenarios. Like if Apple only sold music that could be played on an iPod. How is this different then a minidisc? The only difference I think is that the consumer isn’t really informed about what they are buying, which is where we do agree. I agree that deception has no place and consumers should be protected against this, perhaps through truth in advertising, but I’m no lawyer.

If you think about it, resolving the deception problem will solve most of your concerns. People will flock to the product that has the least restrictions if they can identify it. I’d rather have that then unneccessary legislation.

But I don’t think Apple should be forced to sell a product that works on other digital music players other then iPod if they so chose not to. If it gets to the point where they have a monopoly, then the rules change, but I don’t think its like that yet.

As for DeCSS (I’m really not familiar with this), that sounds like it could be a monopoly type issue as well. There is a difference between keeping tech to yourself and a few others and specifically excluding someone from the market. I’d be surprised if new legislation is needed, but again,I’m no lawyer. But it wouldn’t be the consumers who do the suing, it would the companies that sell Linux.

And yes, I can see the benefit of everyone playing ball in this case, but what’s good for the consumer is not always not what companies want to do as a business strategy, and they shouldn’t be forced to.

Again, I think this maybe more of an issue of how we view government.

You’re “the only one being vocal on the subject of consumer rights regarding Digital Rights Management (DRM)”? isn’t that being a tiny bit presumptuous?

Perhaps I can suggest visiting http://www.digitalconsumer.org/, or checking out the relevent material on eff.org, or even just searching on “fair use rights”. You’re not alone – far from it.

There are a lot of us concerned about the effect that the paranoia of the content industry is having on how we can (or more accurately, can’t) use the content we’ve purchased. Treat us all like thieves, and you may well convert some of us into ones.

For example, I’d love to copy unwatched TV shows from my TiVo to a laptop to watch when I’m travelling – but I’m a DirecTV subscriber. If/when I get a portable media player, I’d like to do the same. I doubt it’ll ever happen legally, so if I want to enjoy the content I’ve legally subscribed to, in the manner I want, I’m forced into ‘criminal behaviour’ (as defined by the DMCA – talk about bad law…). Your child crying because he can’t watch ‘Blues Clues’ in the hotel room is a pretty powerful motive…

Consumers have fair and reasonable expectations on how they can enjoy their content, which the content owners seem hell-bent on trying to prevent at any cost. Wake up, we’re not going to buy multiple different formats of the same title.

How does that old adage go? ‘the tighter your grip, the more slips through your fingers’.

As far as the government angle goes, what concerns me is that our ‘representatives’ are not representing our interests (the general public, aka ‘consumers’). It seems they are representing lobbyists and campaign contributors. It’s pretty apparent in the total lack of balance in laws like the DMCA. A good example is our favorite rocket scientist, Senator ‘Fritz’ Hollings. A look at http://www.opensecrets.org/politici…2423&cycle=2002 is quite enlightening…

PaulC said: You’re “the only one being vocal on the subject of consumer rights regarding Digital Rights Management (DRM)”? isn’t that being a tiny bit presumptuous?

First, thanks for the links! I really like the idea behind DigitalConsumer.org and it Consumer Technology Bill of Rights. In regard to the opening line, it was more of a statement toward me as a gadget / connected home / digital lifestyle web publisher being vocal about consumer rights — even mainstream tech analysts aren’t really touching it. Yes, I’m familiar with EFF, and I’ve plugged them on several occasions, although I consider them more of advocacy group. I just would like to see more mainstream tech and gadget sites being more vocal when it comes to DRM.

Ah, that makes more sense. I’m disappointed too that there isn’t much written about DRM. It does come up occasionally (as asides on Engadget and Om Malik’s blog, for example) but I don’t see the kind of ‘wall of opposition’ that I think we should be presenting as a group to bring some balance to the discussion.

I like the position both the Digital Consumer people and EFF have been taking. They seem to be good advocates of a more reasonable balance between their need to protect their business and our need to have some flexibility to enjoying content we’ve purchased in the manner of our choosing. But comparing ‘column inches’ between their coverage and that of the RIAA and MPAA, and something’s just not right.

Perhaps we as consumers need to start suing them? ;) ah, but we’re back to not having a statute that protects our ‘fair use’ rights…

Perhaps if you wrote a follow-up entry about DigitalConsumer.org it would help draw attention to them. Those of us reading the RSS feed don’t see the comments…

You can view the news comment in the forum feed: http://www.ehomeupgrade.com/syndication_forums.xml

You raise an interesting question, though… do you think readers would like the news comments combined with the news feed, or kept seperate (as is the case now)?

Personally I only want to see the articles in the feed. I couldn’t read anything like the number of feeds I do unless the signal-to-noise ratio remains very high. Frankly I find there are few blogs where reader’s comments (taken as a group) are remotely as interesting as the articles.

So no, I wouldn’t want to see all comments for all articles. I’m fine with manually checking the comments made to an individual article that deals with subject matter that’s particularly interesting to me. So the existing ‘subscribe to a thread’ feature works fine for me.

OK, I’ve finally gone through and read all of the posts on the other topic and the posts here.

I think I partly agree with you, Alexander. First off, I definitely agree on the disappointing silence regarding DRM. I remember when I began researching the DMCA for a school project last semester and becoming quite frustrated to find out what its provisions included. Not only should we be on the lookout for new legislation like Induce, but we should be actively campaigning for the DMCA to be amended.

On the poll, I personally think you’re giving a false choice – I don’t really completely agree with either answer. In some ways I’m with melvin in that I don’t want too much government intervention, and some of the provisions you’ve mentioned I don’t think I’d want actually codified.

There is the free market aspect to this – I think that if a major content provider and a major technology company woke up and started offering flexible DRM at great prices, the market would really start shifting. Apple convincing record labels to allow the iTunes Store was in some ways a great first step, and it’s been quite successful. But to think that we should stop there is in my opinion ludicrous.

Yet, the free market scenario, as I mentioned, is predicated on a change of heart by a content provider, which isn’t very likely. That may be where some government intervention would be helpful. Amending the DMCA would be an awesome first step. I understand the differences in modern technology, but the fact that the DMCA criminalizes the very creation of enabling technologies and not merely an act of copyright infringement is to me very unsettling. Let’s face it – recent copyright laws have been giving plenty of extra protections to copyright holders without much regard for law-abiding citizens and their fair use rights. Those have historically been important rights, in addition to the rights of the copyright holder.

Speaking of rights, I did like DigitalConsumer’s Bill of Rights. I’m not sure I completely agree with all of it, but it’s a fantastic start.

One point in this that I’m still not sure about is the platform requirement issue. I can understand why you’d want to require that copyright holders make content available on other platforms, but again I think that specific point may be more a free market issue than a legal one. The company that allows more flexibility has a better chance of succeeding, if the market it well. Of course, when one company holds the keys (like with DeCSS), then, as melvin mentioned, you may have more of a monopoly situation.

These are some tough issues. But I think we can all agree that consumers need some more protections and fair use provisions. I’m all for the rights of content providers – I’m in no way advocating stealing content or the old Napster days – but at the same time, consumers should not be so hampered by provisions like the DMCA.

Ultimately I think the ideal solution would be free market, where like I was describing (and as I’ve said before) that some companies would get with the program and start offering a setup that’s more of a win-win situation. In the absence of that, though, and with laws like the DMCA, I think some Congressional solutions may be in order as well.

You cite the Digital Media Consumers’ Rights Act (DMCRA) as a good law. I submit that passing the DMCRA makes your poll and the entire DRM issue irrelevant. You only cited one portion of the DMCRA about mislabeled or unlabeled CDs. The other portion of the DMCRA states that innocent noninfringing people do not go to prison under the DMCA.. That is a pretty simple position – that noninfringing people not be imprisoned – but it renders the entire DRM issue moot. It means that innocent people can simply bypass or remove any DRM scheme for any noninfringing purpose at all. It also means that programmers and hardware makers can give you products and/or instructions to bypass or remove DRM systems for noninfringing purposes.

The result is that anyone can use any DRM system they like, and it will not signifigantly interfere with consumer rights to the noninfringing activities you want to defend.

With or without the DMCRA infringing people are infringing and subject to civil or criminal prosecution. The only question is whether you ( ) support the DMCRA or ( ) want to imprison innocent noninfringing people.

If you want to support Consumer Rights simply support the Digital Media Consumers’ Rights Act.

bugmenot said: You cite the Digital Media Consumers’ Rights Act (DMCRA) as a good law. I submit that passing the DMCRA makes your poll and the entire DRM issue irrelevant. You only cited one portion of the DMCRA about mislabeled or unlabeled CDs. The other portion of the DMCRA states that innocent noninfringing people do not go to prison under the DMCA.. That is a pretty simple position – that noninfringing people not be imprisoned – but it renders the entire DRM issue moot. It means that innocent people can simply bypass or remove any DRM scheme for any noninfringing purpose at all. It also means that programmers and hardware makers can give you products and/or instructions to bypass or remove DRM systems for noninfringing purposes.

The result is that anyone can use any DRM system they like, and it will not signifigantly interfere with consumer rights to the noninfringing activities you want to defend.

With or without the DMCRA infringing people are infringing and subject to civil or criminal prosecution. The only question is whether you ( ) support the DMCRA or ( ) want to imprison innocent noninfringing people.

If you want to support Consumer Rights simply support the Digital Media Consumers’ Rights Act.

There’s not much I can say about your rant (I’m not really sure where you’re going with that). But I guess you’re referring to the small comment I made to Melvin which read:

In fact, there’s a bill going forward called “Digital Media Consumers’ Rights Act of 2005′ that targets copy-protected music CDs as “an unfair method of competition and an unfair and deceptive act or practice.”

Just so it’s clear: I’m not backing any bill at this time. I was giving an example of a bill that was going forward to help protect consumers from inadvertently buying copy-protected CDs that are not clearly marked as such. These types of CDs already have caused havoc to people’s PCs in the past or they render CDs unplayable on one’s computer. If you have a problem with that… tough.

FYI — Keep these forums civil or risk getting banned

Alexander Grundner said: I’m not really sure where you’re going

The only reason there is any consumer rights problem at all is because of the DMCA (and EUCD) criminalizing noninfringing people. It doesn’t matter whether DRM is “dictated by Content Producers and OS Platform Specific” or some sort of mandated “Cross-Platform Compatible DRM”, neither of your poll options can possibly preserve consumer rights. The line between infringment and lawful use often lies in intent. It is simply impossible to create a mindreading DRM system.

Does consumer rights mean a sticker saying a CD won’t play in your CD player? Or does consumer rights mean not going to prison when you buy and get it to work in your player anyway?

I’d be facinated to know what you think of the rest of the DMCRA. Do you oppose that basic idea of decriminalizing noninfringing people?

I can’t imagine anyone seriously opposing to the idea that innocent noninfringing people should not go to prison. It is a very simple and very reasonable position. However it appears an implicit result is losing any expectation of DRM actually working. A result that happens to make both of your poll options irrelevant.

I’m saying that either way your two poll options appear invalid. Either neither one protects consumer rights, or neither one matters.

If I’m mistaken, I welcome any correction or explanation. Most DRM opposition would evaporate if you could offer some DRM system or some legal system for DRM that does not imply prison sentences for noninfringing people.