DRM and Fair Use

Most of the negatives of DRM and copyright law exist to protect the copyright holder, but the purpose of the copyright laws are to protect the public and it is a problem that people must face this tragedy in this day. This does not answer the question of why DRM is good for companies and how they force it upon consumers. The answer is very clear, piracy. Even a few years ago, the term piracy meant a few people on the open seas raiding a ship for bounty. The term has lost its meaning thanks to clever PR. Its new meaning is anyone that copies a copyrighted work, for any reason. That is correct; most people are pirates and are committing piracy acts. This still does not answer the question about what the public gain from this type of restrictive technology. Most people do not care about piracy because it does not affect them. The media companies spin the issue to read like this: If piracy occurs, there will be no new content made. Taken further, the piracy issue would cause the collapse of all the different media companies. This has not happened to this day even after groups such as the RIAA and MPAA have been suing individuals over so called piracy. It is lucky for them that none of the cases have been brought to court, instead they make the defended, which is usually someone that cannot defend themselves, pay some amount of money less than the court fees would be. In essence, it allows them to say that they are fighting piracy and that they do get the people that are committing the acts. It is a problem with the legal system in America that allows this extortion to happen. Those with the most money win.

Media companies argue that DRM will help to bring more content to consumers with cheaper prices. As an example, a DVD that costs $20 may cost $5 with a DRM that allows for a single-viewing only. The problem with this argument is that it has been done before and has failed. The unpopular DIVX standard for DVDs that self-destructed after 48 hours was a great example of DRM failure in the marketplace. There are some successful examples of DRM in the marketplace such as the iTunes Music Store, but the iTunes FairPlay DRM is easily broken and easily copied. Even so, the DRM on its own is fairly open. Nonrestrictive DRM is the only DRM that will be accepted in the marketplace. Acceptable and proper is not the same thing, though. DRM should not be taken lightly.

The public stands to lose by changes brought about by DRM. The fact that there are laws such as the DMCA that supports DRM ensure the public loss in these areas.

Quote

An erosion of fair use in favor of DRM comes with the following potential costs:

• a reduction in freedom of expression, to the extent DRM interferes with review, commentary, scholarship, and parody;
• a reduction in innovation, to the extent that DRM eliminates the reservoir of incentives that spur companies to develop technologies that interact with copyrighted works;
• a reduction in innovation, to the extent that DRM depends on legislative mandates (whether in the form of the DMCA, a mandate from the Broadcast Protection Discussion Group or the pending Hollings bill) that interfere with science and technology development;
• an erosion of privacy, to the extent that DRM compromises user anonymity;
• the "freezing" of fair use, to the extent that DRM systems will prevent courts from evolving fair use in response to new technologies;
• undermining archives, libraries, and others who store and preserve our cultural heritage, to the extent DRM systems prevent free archiving of copyrighted content;
• lessened competition, to the extent that DRM systems prevent companies from engaging in legitimate reverse engineering of competitors\\\' products.

(4)

Conclusion:

What can be concluded from the approach the DRM and copyright law have on the public is that the public stands to lose much more than they would ever gain from this intrusive technology. DRM stifles fair use, ensures less competition in the marketplace, and disregards the fact that consumers are purchasing content. The best example of this issue is in computer games being made today. There are DRM copyright protection schemes that force the original CDs to be present to play the game and copies cannot be made. In the past, gamers would make a copy of the CD and use the copy to play the game and keep the original away as to not get damaged. This cannot be done with the current scheme. Most DRM in games also install system level drivers and rootkits which are detrimental for system stability. The other incident that occurred is when Sony BMG packaged rootkit-type DRM with their music CDs. Consumers that played the CDs in their computers opened themselves up for attack from viruses and spyware. Legally, Sony should be liable for damages and many district attorneys are still looking into the issue. The public has much to lose in this issue and hopefully we will stand up for our rights to fair use.

References:
1 http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/fair_use_and_drm.html "1. The Past: the VCR" Accessed April 15th, 2006
2 http://www.eff.org/broadcastflag/ Accessed April 15th, 2006
3 http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/fair_use_and_drm.html "A. Activities that Rely on Fair Use" Accessed April 15th, 2006
4 http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/fair_use_and_drm.html "C. What Does the Public Stand to Lose?" Accessed April 15th, 2006

All text in this article is © 2006 Aron Schatz »http://www.aselabs.com . Personal/Private consumption of this article is allowed under 'fair use' as long as the copyright notice remains (© 2006 Aron Schatz »http://www.aselabs.com). Any public reproduction (commercial use) must be authorized by Aron Schatz before being published. This goes for any businesses or major media outlets.

I may hate DRM and copyrights, but I also don't like people stealing my work without giving me credit.