Blogging Ottinger (tim)DRM? Maybe not!
I read now that the labels are starting to rethink their DRM stance. This has been good for independents:
Most independent record labels already sell tracks digitally compressed in MP3 format, which can be downloaded, e-mailed or copied to computers, cellphones, portable music players and compact discs without limit. Partially, the independents see providing songs in MP3 as a way of generating publicity that could lead to future sales.
It is good for device manufacturers:
“We could release our products without digital-rights management restrictions on them in the way that consumers want and still make a lot of money,” Gary Shapiro, president of the Consumer Electronics Association, said at Midem over the weekend. “And I think we’ll be hearing more and more about that.”
Amazingly, though, there are people vested in the old DRM ideal. This quote seems moronic to me:
The judge said a consumer’s right to make private copies does not extend to letting subscribers store songs broadcast by XM. “‘Fair use’ does not extend them that right to become distributors of music,” Bainwol said at Midem.
How is storing music equivalent to distributing it? I don’t see the connection. It’s like equating ripping a CD to stealing a car or shoplifting. It’s nonsense. If someone stores a song then they are capable of distributing it, but that’s not the same as doing it. I think it’s insane to talk about punishing a person for being capable of crime, instead of for committing a crime. This is my argument with DMCA. There should be no “illegal state of being”, wherein one is a criminal by virtue of being crime-capable. Being able to bypass protection shouldn’t be illegal. Bypassing it should not be illegal. Distributing (assumption: for profit) should certainly be. Copying to your iPod should not be. Time-shifting, format-shifting, device-shifting are not wrong, and fair use should certainly allow for it.
Equally stupid is this quote:
In addition, Bainwol said, the ability of consumers to use legally purchased tunes on different devices is not crippled by DRM systems per se. “We’re for interoperability,” he said, “and there’s nothing intrinsic to DRM that prevents interoperability.”
Certainly there is something intrinsic to DRM that prevents interoperability. The whole point of DRM is to prevent unauthorized playing on unauthorized devices. DRM by its very nature and intent is an intrinsic anti-interoperability mechanism. That means you can only interoperate with approved devices, and that means only those devices and programs whose makers can pay licensing fees and implement the top-secret, DMCA-protected copy protection can interoperate. No open source projects, no free players, no non-paying devices.
Just splitting hairs: due to the DMCA owning the source to the DRM software puts you in an illegal state of being capable of bypassing the copy protection. If you think about it, building a DRM system should be illegal under DMCA. Only DRM-free players playing DRM-free files would be safe and legal?
