[governance] Why HTML5 #DRM is dangerous for Free Software (was Draft Statement...)

Fri Jun 14 00:15:19 EDT 2013

The only exception I think to the 'recall + money back' would be I think
Toyota's cars. Ref:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%9311_Toyota_vehicle_recalls

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar <chaitanyabd at gmail.com
> wrote:

> > I think that it's very important that when cultural goods are sold
> > rather than shared freely, it must be possible to buy without the
> > “who bought what” information getting recorded in some kind of database.
>
> I say this is already being done. Moot point as DRM is not the culprit
> here. Again I reiterate that I'm against DRM
>
> > The specification which is under discussion foresees that an additional
> > component will be needed in addition to OS + Browser + Movie Player:
> > A “content decryption module” (CDM).
>
> > In my opinion, it is not plausible to expect the CDMs to be made
> > available for Free Software operating system platforms. (Doing so would
> > make it trivially easy to defeat what that whole architecture with the
> > CDMs is seeking to achieve.)
>
> Doing so will not prevent the FS community from utilizing the
> resources/material that have been rightfully purchased; so there's no
> question of this obstructing use on an open OS or otherwise. It will not
> prevent the open source community from utilizing what they've bought. My
> point is that this is *not a sufficient basis* for rejecting DRM. Again,
> for clarity's sake noting here that I'm against DRM
>
> The key reason I'm against DRM is here:
> In one instance of DRM that caused a rift with consumers, Amazon.com<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com>remotely deleted purchased copies of George
> Orwell <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell>'s *Nineteen
> Eighty-Four <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four>* and *Animal
> Farm <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm>* from customers' Amazon
> Kindles <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Kindle> after providing them
> a refund for the purchased products.[44]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management#cite_note-44>Commentators have widely described these actions as
> Orwellian <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwellian>, and have alluded to Big
> Brother <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Brother_(Nineteen_Eighty-Four)>from Orwell's
> *Nineteen Eighty-Four*.[45]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management#cite_note-45>
> [46] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management#cite_note-46>
> [47] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management#cite_note-47>
> [48] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management#cite_note-48>After an Amazon CEO Jeff
> Bezos <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos> issued a public apology,
> the Free Software Foundation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation>wrote that this was just one more example of the excessive power Amazon has
> to remotely censor what people read through its software, and called upon
> Amazon to free its e-book reader and drop DRM.[49]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management#cite_note-49>Amazon then revealed that the reason behind its deletion was the ebooks in
> question were unauthorized reproductions of Orwell's works, which were not
> within the public domain and to which the company that published and sold
> them on Amazon's service had no rights.[50]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management#cite_note-50>
>
> ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management
>
> I would personally hate it if I bought a software/book/movie/ whatever,
> and then the seller comes back to me and says "yes we're recalling it and
> you'll get your money back" with some fragile excuse of 'unauthorized
> replication' - which THEY should have checked FIRST. That's their problem,
> not mine - and is also a different argument which we shouldn't get into at
> this point.
>
> That apart, various Digital Restrictions Management mechanisms have
> existed in the past - many of which have been bypassed, cracked & patched
> out of the software. Some of which were so trivial to bypass it's like it
> didn't exist in the first place. Sooner or later they were bound to want
> greater control over what they make/sell - but that's neither here nor
> there. IMHO if "goods once sold are sold for good" the rights to store that
> as we want to store it belong to us (with the understanding of course that
> we would not pirate/resell/etc it).
>
> -C
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
>> Chaitanya Dhareshwar <chaitanyabd at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In the context of Disney movies - assuming "purchased" and not
>> > "pirated" - wouldnt the purchaser already be exposing their identity
>> > for the purchase validation process?
>>
>> I think that it's very important that when cultural goods are sold
>> rather than shared freely, it must be possible to buy without the
>> “who bought what” information getting recorded in some kind of database.
>>
>> For example, I have literature which is of a kind that (in some
>> totalitarian states) people have been literally persecuted and killed
>> for having.
>>
>> This kind of potential risk is not only in regard to human rights
>> violations by states. What if some kind of terrorist organization
>> delares a “jihad” against all who read a certain book or watch a
>> certain video?
>>
>>
>> I think that this is a relevant concern in regard to DRM, even if it
>> not one that I have been addressing in my recent posting. There I was
>> talking about protecting one's privacy in regard to communications etc
>> by means of using a Free Software operating system platform, and about
>> the potential dilemma that could easily arise if DRM'd content becomes
>> increasingly important (from the user's perspective) but because of the
>> DRM it is not accessible using a Free Software operating system
>> platform.
>>
>> > Further DRM as a part of the standard would mean that browsers that
>> > work on *nix platforms would also support the standard (for example
>> > this list here:
>> >
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_browsers_for_Unix_and_Unix-like_operating_systems).
>> ..
>> > In fact most browsers would sooner or later have built in support for
>> > DRM just in the process of following the standard. Thus people using
>> > an open source platform (using Linux as an example) would easily be
>> > able to make the purchase, as well as watch the movie both using
>> > freely available (OS + Browser + Movie Player).
>>
>> The specification which is under discussion foresees that an additional
>> component will be needed in addition to OS + Browser + Movie Player:
>> A “content decryption module” (CDM).
>>
>> In my opinion, it is not plausible to expect the CDMs to be made
>> available for Free Software operating system platforms. (Doing so would
>> make it trivially easy to defeat what that whole architecture with the
>> CDMs is seeking to achieve.)
>>
>>
>> Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>> > It seems to me that there's a mistaken concept of "freedom to listen"
>> > (by all and any available means) in addition to the well accepted
>> > concept of "freedom of speech".
>> >
>> > Is it an infringement of my human rights if I have to buy an X-box to
>> > run a particular X-box game, because my open source *nix PC won't
>> > play the game?
>>
>> That's not the type of situation that I'm protesting against.
>>
>> Suppose someone has an X-box (with some games) and a PC with Microsoft
>> Windows as OS. Two separate physical machines which connect to the
>> Internet using the same IP address (via a NAT box). The person then
>> replaces Microsoft Windows on the PC with a different OS which the
>> user believe has better privacy protection properties. If that action
>> has the consequence that the X-box gets remotely disabled, making all
>> the games on the X-box unplayable on the X-box, then I'd say that that
>> situation is analogous to DRM's cultural goods which are accessible
>> only on some “mainstream” operating system platforms but not on user
>> modifiable operating system platforms.
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>>
>> --
>> Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC:
>> 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person
>> 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130614/438a83a9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t