"With the recent release of the second draft of the GNU General Public License version 3, digital rights management is back in the news. The new draft may raise concerns about the rewording of section 3 of the license, which deals with DRM. The Free Software Foundation dislikes the term "digital rights management" and instead choose to call it digital "restrictions" management. But many people don't understand the implications of DRM on free software like Linux."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
Let's say I buy a painting from a famous paniter (alive) and I pay $3 million. Then I am the OWNER of that paint. I can retouch it, copy it or sh*t on it. That's why I payed $3 million for it ! The author keeps no rights over it (he keeps the money, which should be enough).
But when a CD sells 150.000 copies for $20 dollars each to a sum of $3 million the funny situation is that the owner of that music is still the one who has sold it ! All the 150.000 users who bought it and made the seller rich only have the right to listen to it.
How can someone sell something and still want to be the owner?
If you'd like to buy the exclusive rights to a certain CD for $3 million and then give away free-as-in-freedom copies, there are plenty of artists/managers out there that would be happy to sell 'em to you.
Member since:2005-07-28
When you buy a painting you buy the original you have all the righs because you bought the orginal, when you buy a cd you buy a copy of the cd not the original, the original belongs to some one else and the owner of the original have all the rigths not you who just bought a copy.
Member since:2005-10-19
Member since:2005-07-13
If you buy a car, you can do what you want with it. You've payed for it and you're the owner, and your rights are not restricted. But if you buy a book, a CD or software, you're not the owner. You only have the right to use it in a certain way. And this is evil.
No, that's not quite correct. Different countries have different legislation, but for the most part, when you purchase a book or a CD or software, you are the owner of the right to use it as you see fit. In the US, I believe the Doctrine of First Sale enforces this, and is the reason used books stores or used CD stores or used video game stores are legally able to operate.
Copyright law covers the re-distribution of protected works. So you can sell your book to someone else, but you can't photocopy it and sell that, or keep the photocopy but sell the book.
This is the catch, media DRM has absolutely nothing to do with piracy, copyright laws already address that anyways, the media companies are simply using that as a scapegoat since it sounds bad. DRM is about the first part: issues like doctrine of first sale, or fair use. It "robs" the media companies of revenue since they do not get any money back from people who legally and legitimately resell work that they legitimately own. They use piracy as an excuse to justify your inability to copy a DVD to a format that will play on your portable media player so you can view it on the road; the reality is they would simply prefer you purchase an additional copy to play on your portable media player. This is also why DRM is also referred to as things like "Fair Use Bypass Surgery".
And this is also why DRM enforcement etc. has varied results in different countries and jurisdictions.
Let's say I buy a painting from a famous paniter (alive) and I pay $3 million. Then I am the OWNER of that paint. I can retouch it, copy it or sh*t on it. That's why I payed $3 million for it ! The author keeps no rights over it (he keeps the money, which should be enough).
But when a CD sells 150.000 copies for $20 dollars each to a sum of $3 million the funny situation is that the owner of that music is still the one who has sold it ! All the 150.000 users who bought it and made the seller rich only have the right to listen to it.
Apples and oranges. When you purchase the painting, you're purchasing the work and most likely all rights that go with it. That's ownership. When you purchase a CD you are purchasing a "copy" of the work, and absolutely no rights other than those granted by fair use (copy + rights = copyrights). It would be no different than buying a print or lithograph from an artist instead of a painting, you wouldn't be able to reproduce and sell it because you don't have the material rights to.
In the CD example, what often happens is that the record labels effectively force the artists to "sell" their rights to the music they produce, and the record labels then have ownership and can reproduce and sell copies of the music. The artists often lose ownership of their own work and have no more rights than you when you purchase it on CD. Record labels don't like co-ownership of work, they want it all, you generally need to be in the stature of U2 or the Stones to have enough clout to maintain control of your own work.
And if someones says that not protecting these rights would stop invention, progress and creativity, please let me laugh about it. The examples through history and in the current times are too many to even doubt about it.
These rights were created in a time when they seemed to serve a purpose. Now they no longer serve that purpose (on the contrary, they've been turned to their evil side). Users are revealing against them, and the time for them to disappear is not far away.
There's nothing wrong with things the way they are. Artists or other content providers have a right to earn a living, and you have a right to choose what you do or do not want to pay for. Copyright law has a legitimate purpose, and besides, remember that the very same laws "inhibiting" you from downloading warez or sharing music on p2p also prevent Microsoft or Apple from taking GPL'd linux code and using it in a proprietary manner.
Don't confuse this with DRM. The media companies actually do not like the status quo and the protections you have (ie. copyright law) which is why they're trying to supplant them or maneuver around them with DRM provisions. They're simply playing a game of misdirection with the public and various legislatures as to where their concerns really lie.
Member since:
2006-04-28
The difference you mention about hardware and software is interesting and it gets to the core of the problem. And this is that patents, copyrights, and the like are artificial, unfair rights given to "stimulate" productivity .They say: "if you invent/create something original we'll give you a prize for it". This prize is at the expense of others, of course. But since it's supposed to increase productivity/creativity/technical advance, it's supported by governments.
If you buy a car, you can do what you want with it. You've payed for it and you're the owner, and your rights are not restricted. But if you buy a book, a CD or software, you're not the owner. You only have the right to use it in a certain way. And this is evil.
Let's say I buy a painting from a famous paniter (alive) and I pay $3 million. Then I am the OWNER of that paint. I can retouch it, copy it or sh*t on it. That's why I payed $3 million for it ! The author keeps no rights over it (he keeps the money, which should be enough).
But when a CD sells 150.000 copies for $20 dollars each to a sum of $3 million the funny situation is that the owner of that music is still the one who has sold it ! All the 150.000 users who bought it and made the seller rich only have the right to listen to it.
How can someone sell something and still want to be the owner? If you want to kep your rights on your music, don't sell it ! You'll remain the owner of it (alas, you wont get rich).
You may say that the difference with a car or a desk is that music can be copied while cars or desks can't. But that's also the musician's advantage. If he had to go to the home of those 150.000 persons with his guitar to play his songs every time they want to listen to them, he wouldn't be able to do it. So digital copies are as good as bad for him.
And if someones says that not protecting these rights would stop invention, progress and creativity, please let me laugh about it. The examples through history and in the current times are too many to even doubt about it.
These rights were created in a time when they seemed to serve a purpose. Now they no longer serve that purpose (on the contrary, they've been turned to their evil side). Users are revealing against them, and the time for them to disappear is not far away.