Wednesday, September 28. 2005
ERM Follow-Up
In recent weeks we have moved DRM Blog and in the move it is possible that some comments might have been lost. We deeply regret this and apologize if your comment is missing. We have restored the comments that we knew were missing; however, if your comment is gone please feel free to repost it. Please accept our apology and know that we read all comments and unless they are considered spam comments are not deleted.
In my previous post I suggested a possible good use for DRM. I suggested that DRM might be useful for business to business uses. I said that a person could use this technology to perhaps protect business documents. Dave Bailey responded to this with the following comment.
The business documents I refer to in my post are not covered by copyright. There is no protection on those documents other than the NDA or privacy statement that the end user might have signed. If the end user breaks one of these agreements then the document owner has a right to challenge the end user in CIVIL court. If the document owner can prove that end user is liable then the document owner can collect damages.
Movies and music on the other hand are covered by copyright. It is a CRIMINAL offense to distribute a song via the internet. This is called piracy. It is a criminal offense to make an illegal copy of a movie. Remember those FBI warnings at the beginning of VHS tapes; $500,000 fine and x years in prison? Copyrighted IP has been protected in this county for decades initially through civil court and now in criminal court. Non-copyrighted material does not share the same luxury. The business proposal is a personal document not a commercial transaction. If I sold or licensed my business proposal to a user then I would agree with Mr. Bailey completely.
Now consider what rights you, the consumer, have when purchasing a license to IP. Music, movies, and software are the most common consumer IP purchases so I will use those as examples. When you purchase one of these products, you have the right to make personal backups. You have the right to let friends listen to or view the content you purchased. You have the right to let friends use your software on your computer. You also have the right to use this IP on any make or model of hardware that is capable of accessing the content you purchased. DRM can and is being used to remove some of these rights from consumers and it is for this reason that DRM on IP is a bad thing.
Many people will argue that their DRM scheme is fair and they can do whatever they want with the content they purchased. Their DRM agreement allows them to burn X copies to CD and they can authorize X computers for use. What most of these people do not know is that their DRM agreement also says that any or all of these rights can be revoked at any time. Another thing that most of these people do not know is that they do not actually own the digital copy for which they just payed 99 cents they are being allowed to use this content so long as the IP owners allow.
One last difference between the use of ERM to protect non-copyright works and DRM to protect copyrighted material is the DMCA. The Digital Millinium Copyright Act makes it a criminal offense to remove DRM, and other protection schemes, from copyrighted material. In effect this gives IP owners the right to legally change copyright law for each piece of IP that they license. This means that it is now the IP owners who are determining what your rights are and not Congress or the Courts. Either way you look at this scenario it looks very bad for consumers.
Author: Jimmy Palmer
In my previous post I suggested a possible good use for DRM. I suggested that DRM might be useful for business to business uses. I said that a person could use this technology to perhaps protect business documents. Dave Bailey responded to this with the following comment.
So let me see if i understand your point, its a good use of DRM to protect your IP, but its a poor use of DRM protect someone else's. If you replace business proposal with music/movie, print with rip, and share with distribute via internet, you have what the Music and Movie industry are doing.I appreciate the idea here but I disagree with Mr. Bailey. The difference is not in who owns the IP. Every IP owner has the right to protect their property in the way that they see fit. I suggest the difference between a good (fair) use of DRM and a bad (unfair) use of DRM is whether the DRM is used to protect rights or remove rights.
The only difference between good and bad in your argument is whether you are on the producing or receiving side. It would be good for the whole world to learn of your business proposal, people would modify it and make it better, the best business people would be better able to make the most money out of it, students could learn from it.
The business documents I refer to in my post are not covered by copyright. There is no protection on those documents other than the NDA or privacy statement that the end user might have signed. If the end user breaks one of these agreements then the document owner has a right to challenge the end user in CIVIL court. If the document owner can prove that end user is liable then the document owner can collect damages.
Movies and music on the other hand are covered by copyright. It is a CRIMINAL offense to distribute a song via the internet. This is called piracy. It is a criminal offense to make an illegal copy of a movie. Remember those FBI warnings at the beginning of VHS tapes; $500,000 fine and x years in prison? Copyrighted IP has been protected in this county for decades initially through civil court and now in criminal court. Non-copyrighted material does not share the same luxury. The business proposal is a personal document not a commercial transaction. If I sold or licensed my business proposal to a user then I would agree with Mr. Bailey completely.
Now consider what rights you, the consumer, have when purchasing a license to IP. Music, movies, and software are the most common consumer IP purchases so I will use those as examples. When you purchase one of these products, you have the right to make personal backups. You have the right to let friends listen to or view the content you purchased. You have the right to let friends use your software on your computer. You also have the right to use this IP on any make or model of hardware that is capable of accessing the content you purchased. DRM can and is being used to remove some of these rights from consumers and it is for this reason that DRM on IP is a bad thing.
Many people will argue that their DRM scheme is fair and they can do whatever they want with the content they purchased. Their DRM agreement allows them to burn X copies to CD and they can authorize X computers for use. What most of these people do not know is that their DRM agreement also says that any or all of these rights can be revoked at any time. Another thing that most of these people do not know is that they do not actually own the digital copy for which they just payed 99 cents they are being allowed to use this content so long as the IP owners allow.
One last difference between the use of ERM to protect non-copyright works and DRM to protect copyrighted material is the DMCA. The Digital Millinium Copyright Act makes it a criminal offense to remove DRM, and other protection schemes, from copyrighted material. In effect this gives IP owners the right to legally change copyright law for each piece of IP that they license. This means that it is now the IP owners who are determining what your rights are and not Congress or the Courts. Either way you look at this scenario it looks very bad for consumers.
Author: Jimmy Palmer
Comments
My comment to your original article was focused on your distinction between good and bad uses of DRM. It seemed to me that your distinction was based on whether you were providing or receiving the information to be protected.
As an example, look at a business example similar to what you described. You want to send a business plan to company. If you signed an NDA, why does the document need to be protected by DRM. The NDA should should contain enough legal protection to stop unauthorized use of the document. If it doesn't, you should not have signed it. All the DRM would do is annoy the person receiving the document.
Business documents are covered by copyright laws, its just that that copyright laws are fairly weak, complex, difficult to enforce, changing with time, different in each country, and often ambiguous. You would be a fool to only use copyright protection to protect sensitive corporate secrets.
The Music and Movie industries have no choice. They can not make people sign agreements before watching movies, purchasing discs, etc. As a result they attempt to protect their property with technology. While copyright law may permit you to do some things that may be not be possible with protected content, it does not state that the copyright holders must make it possible or free.
As an example, look at a business example similar to what you described. You want to send a business plan to company. If you signed an NDA, why does the document need to be protected by DRM. The NDA should should contain enough legal protection to stop unauthorized use of the document. If it doesn't, you should not have signed it. All the DRM would do is annoy the person receiving the document.
Business documents are covered by copyright laws, its just that that copyright laws are fairly weak, complex, difficult to enforce, changing with time, different in each country, and often ambiguous. You would be a fool to only use copyright protection to protect sensitive corporate secrets.
The Music and Movie industries have no choice. They can not make people sign agreements before watching movies, purchasing discs, etc. As a result they attempt to protect their property with technology. While copyright law may permit you to do some things that may be not be possible with protected content, it does not state that the copyright holders must make it possible or free.
#1
David Bailey on Oct 10 2005, 10:02
The author has not allowed comments to this entry
