Monday, April 11. 2005
Consumer DRM-Awareness Through Labeling
I try never to miss a chance to dispense praise where I think it's deserved. Criticism alone can neither instruct nor lead nor instill hope in making changes for the better. Even if that means that my commentary sometimes switches mid-argument from stricture to salute, I've made a promise to myself to always point out times when designers and leaders and companies have made good choices in the past so that they may repeat them in the future.
This week the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property held a panel to explore the issue of limited interoperability among portable music devices and music file DRM's. The ultimate decision of the subcommittee was that the government should not force player manufacturers to adopt a compatibility standard. I'm fine with this; I agree, at this point, that the government shouldn't decide the fate of media players and DRM standards. I've read some similar praise for this committee decision in Mac-blogs. However, my praise is based on a dislike of DRM standards in general rather than an iPod zealot's devotion to a single manufacturer and its cult-inspiring leader. I have more fear of what a Congressional or agency decision might saddle us with than the effects of market pressure over an extended period of time. The market does often make us deal with lower quality formats (like VHS over Beta) and proprietary fencing in the short-term, but I trust in the innovation that the tech market encourages to help unseat any deadweight of past-paradigm winners. If all portable media devices are forced to comply with a set of DRM standards, we'll never be able to unseat clunky, unethical and restrictive DRM schemes that are prevalent at this point in time. Likewise, if the law requires devices to accommodate a stack of DRM formats, the barrier to entry for new device manufacturers would become nigh-impossible to scale.
The subcommittee that held the panel is chaired by Representative Lamar Smith, a republican from Texas. He also managed during panel to mutter two very encouraging words, "full disclosure," which I find to be equally worth mentioning.
Every other article seems to be concentrating on Apple’s no-show or Napster’s CEO William Pence’s, but I’m more concerned with Smith’s and Berman’s legislative past. The bi-partisan force of Democrat Berman and Republican Smith has been the source of some very dangerous legislation. Yes, these are the same Congressmen (along with Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich. who also took part in the interoperability panel) who authored H.R. 4077 "Piracy Deterrence and Education Act of 2004" (and its more frightening predecessor, House Bill 2517 of 2003) that would saddle the FBI (and the taxpayer’s wallet) with the responsibility of doing the RIAA’s and MPAA’s dirty work: seeking out, investigating and prosecuting online media piracy. The Lamar-Berman corporate tag team introduced H.B. 2517 one year after Howard Berman himself tried to do Orrin Hatch one better by authoring a bill that would make it legal for copyright holders who wanted to hack into networks they thought harbored illegal pirated copies of their work.
Does it bother you that these guys are the ones deciding whether or not the government should be involved in picking one DRM to rule them all or picking which DRM schemes the media players must comply with? It certainly makes me a little nervous. That’s why I’m relieved, near joyful in fact, that Howard Berman, Lamar Smith, and John Conyers bowed out and let the market decide. Their decision probably has more to do with the fact that Hollywood still hasn’t yet made up its mind on which DRM standard to use than it has to do with what’s best for the consumer. Then again, every single member of the panel that showed up recommended that the government keep their hands off and let the market take its course.
I’m satisfied with the finding the House subcommittee, not only because they’re keeping the government out of media player DRM for the present, but also because of Smith’s two little words: “full disclosure”. Quotes alone do not good legislation make, but they can start the ball rolling. I’m an advocate of consumer awareness, particularly in the case of digital rights management. Few products list their DRM restrictions anywhere on the box where it can be read before purchase. Software companies make certain to write in bold on the side of the package that copying this product is illegal but they always manage to leave their EULA’s and DRM-restrictions safely unreadable inside the box. Since I don’t know any retailer that will allow returns on opened software, it’s impossible to choose a product with a better EULA and DRM without a labeling system. I also know that no company is going to voluntarily adopt labeling practices unless required by law.
DRM labeling should be more than fine print on the inside of a box. It should be in plain English, easily readable in normal sized font, and list all of the limitations of use that are built into the software or hardware you’re purchasing. If the CD won’t install when there is burning software installed on the computer, the consumer needs to know. If you can’t make fair use back-up copies at all because of DRM, the consumer needs to know. EULA’s should come with a layman explanation for every paragraph to explain the legalese. For items purchased online, EULA’s shouldn’t be held for the final page with a last-second approval button before your credit card is charged.
I have no doubt that the market would continue to support restrictive and unethical DRM’s. However, no company is going to voluntarily adopt labeling unless it’s required by law. I don’t expect such legislation to come from the Smith-Berman-Conyers team, but perhaps your representative would take to the idea. You should call them and find out.
Author: Ginger Cox
Sources:
Foster, Ed. Playing Games with Customer Rights, Ed Foster’s GripeLog, November 9, 2004.
Foster, Jeff. Doom is Coming, Doom is Coming, Doom is Coming, Ed Foster’s GripeLog, August 9, 2004.
Greene , Thomas C. Congress to Turn Hacks into Hackers, The Register, July 24, 2002.
Greene , Thomas C. House Bill Would Cast FBI as Copyright Pinkertons, The Register, June 23, 2003.
Hatchman, Mark. House Eyes DRM Interoperability, Extreme Tech, April 8, 2005.
Schor, Elana. Lawmakers look at digital music compatibility concerns, MarketWatch.com, April 6, 2005.
This week the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property held a panel to explore the issue of limited interoperability among portable music devices and music file DRM's. The ultimate decision of the subcommittee was that the government should not force player manufacturers to adopt a compatibility standard. I'm fine with this; I agree, at this point, that the government shouldn't decide the fate of media players and DRM standards. I've read some similar praise for this committee decision in Mac-blogs. However, my praise is based on a dislike of DRM standards in general rather than an iPod zealot's devotion to a single manufacturer and its cult-inspiring leader. I have more fear of what a Congressional or agency decision might saddle us with than the effects of market pressure over an extended period of time. The market does often make us deal with lower quality formats (like VHS over Beta) and proprietary fencing in the short-term, but I trust in the innovation that the tech market encourages to help unseat any deadweight of past-paradigm winners. If all portable media devices are forced to comply with a set of DRM standards, we'll never be able to unseat clunky, unethical and restrictive DRM schemes that are prevalent at this point in time. Likewise, if the law requires devices to accommodate a stack of DRM formats, the barrier to entry for new device manufacturers would become nigh-impossible to scale.
The subcommittee that held the panel is chaired by Representative Lamar Smith, a republican from Texas. He also managed during panel to mutter two very encouraging words, "full disclosure," which I find to be equally worth mentioning.
Both Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the subcommittee considering digital music regulation, and his Democratic counterpart Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., indicated their action would avoid forcing digital music providers into compatibility. That did not exclude forcing providers to warn consumers of their incompatibility, what Smith called "not a government mandate, but still full disclosure."One of my biggest concerns is that most consumers aren't aware of what media stores and file formats they'll be limited to when they make the initial decision to buy a portable device. Sure, sure, it's written in the EULA's and help files of the music stores themselves. But since nearly all media player owners buy their players before they buy music online, the average user doesn't really know from what sources of new music s/he'll be limited in buying. Printing the file formats on the side of a box is only the first step; consumers need to know where those file formats come from and what DRM-scheme they may be attached to.
Every other article seems to be concentrating on Apple’s no-show or Napster’s CEO William Pence’s, but I’m more concerned with Smith’s and Berman’s legislative past. The bi-partisan force of Democrat Berman and Republican Smith has been the source of some very dangerous legislation. Yes, these are the same Congressmen (along with Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich. who also took part in the interoperability panel) who authored H.R. 4077 "Piracy Deterrence and Education Act of 2004" (and its more frightening predecessor, House Bill 2517 of 2003) that would saddle the FBI (and the taxpayer’s wallet) with the responsibility of doing the RIAA’s and MPAA’s dirty work: seeking out, investigating and prosecuting online media piracy. The Lamar-Berman corporate tag team introduced H.B. 2517 one year after Howard Berman himself tried to do Orrin Hatch one better by authoring a bill that would make it legal for copyright holders who wanted to hack into networks they thought harbored illegal pirated copies of their work.
Does it bother you that these guys are the ones deciding whether or not the government should be involved in picking one DRM to rule them all or picking which DRM schemes the media players must comply with? It certainly makes me a little nervous. That’s why I’m relieved, near joyful in fact, that Howard Berman, Lamar Smith, and John Conyers bowed out and let the market decide. Their decision probably has more to do with the fact that Hollywood still hasn’t yet made up its mind on which DRM standard to use than it has to do with what’s best for the consumer. Then again, every single member of the panel that showed up recommended that the government keep their hands off and let the market take its course.
I’m satisfied with the finding the House subcommittee, not only because they’re keeping the government out of media player DRM for the present, but also because of Smith’s two little words: “full disclosure”. Quotes alone do not good legislation make, but they can start the ball rolling. I’m an advocate of consumer awareness, particularly in the case of digital rights management. Few products list their DRM restrictions anywhere on the box where it can be read before purchase. Software companies make certain to write in bold on the side of the package that copying this product is illegal but they always manage to leave their EULA’s and DRM-restrictions safely unreadable inside the box. Since I don’t know any retailer that will allow returns on opened software, it’s impossible to choose a product with a better EULA and DRM without a labeling system. I also know that no company is going to voluntarily adopt labeling practices unless required by law.
DRM labeling should be more than fine print on the inside of a box. It should be in plain English, easily readable in normal sized font, and list all of the limitations of use that are built into the software or hardware you’re purchasing. If the CD won’t install when there is burning software installed on the computer, the consumer needs to know. If you can’t make fair use back-up copies at all because of DRM, the consumer needs to know. EULA’s should come with a layman explanation for every paragraph to explain the legalese. For items purchased online, EULA’s shouldn’t be held for the final page with a last-second approval button before your credit card is charged.
I have no doubt that the market would continue to support restrictive and unethical DRM’s. However, no company is going to voluntarily adopt labeling unless it’s required by law. I don’t expect such legislation to come from the Smith-Berman-Conyers team, but perhaps your representative would take to the idea. You should call them and find out.
Author: Ginger Cox
Sources:
Foster, Ed. Playing Games with Customer Rights, Ed Foster’s GripeLog, November 9, 2004.
Foster, Jeff. Doom is Coming, Doom is Coming, Doom is Coming, Ed Foster’s GripeLog, August 9, 2004.
Greene , Thomas C. Congress to Turn Hacks into Hackers, The Register, July 24, 2002.
Greene , Thomas C. House Bill Would Cast FBI as Copyright Pinkertons, The Register, June 23, 2003.
Hatchman, Mark. House Eyes DRM Interoperability, Extreme Tech, April 8, 2005.
Schor, Elana. Lawmakers look at digital music compatibility concerns, MarketWatch.com, April 6, 2005.
Comments
For now, seems fair. But the "squeaky wheel" principle is going to keep Smith and Berman (and their ilk) at the fore.
Now, I happen to think that DRM or something similar can be a good idea. It is the mindset analogous to intelligence reports ("classify everything by default") that is not only annoying but scary.
------ Off topic
Vhs-Beta
Yes, Beta had a (slightly) better picture.
But from the consumer standpoint, a couple of flaws.
Technical: limited "pause." '5 minutes and I have to rewind' might not be enough time for a bathroom break, let be dinner.
Political: "we will never allow porn." Stupid, and worrying about what else would not be "allowed."
Now, I happen to think that DRM or something similar can be a good idea. It is the mindset analogous to intelligence reports ("classify everything by default") that is not only annoying but scary.
------ Off topic
Vhs-Beta
Yes, Beta had a (slightly) better picture.
But from the consumer standpoint, a couple of flaws.
Technical: limited "pause." '5 minutes and I have to rewind' might not be enough time for a bathroom break, let be dinner.
Political: "we will never allow porn." Stupid, and worrying about what else would not be "allowed."
#1
John Anderson on Apr 17 2005, 15:15
this website is fully faltoo and i don't like this website at all. please close this website as fast as you could. its very boring.
i call this site a good one but its irrelevant.they havent tried to tell what is actually consumer awareness. So i think u should put this site in a dust bin
#3
Masteroids on Jun 7 2005, 01:21
The author has not allowed comments to this entry
