My Inner Struggle with Microsoft, Linux, and DRM

[James Fee]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.ehomeupgrade.com/entry/936/my_inner_struggle' target='_blank'>http://www.ehomeupgrade.com/entry/936/my_inner_struggle</a><br /><br /></div><i>"My observation of DRM: it's a necessary evil, but one that should be kept in check by the legislation. I'm by no means a lawyer or an expert on the subject, but consumers need representation in what seems to be a one-sided debate regarding how consumers can use and share the content they are willing to pay for. In my opinion, it's not acceptable for consumers to have different terms of use for content playback on particular platforms (case in point: digital music and video services who implement proprietary Apple and Microsoft based DRM technologies). In other words, we need an updated version, and a set standard, for "fair use" in the digital age that clearly states the rights of both consumers and producers in regard to DRM protected digital media. Furthermore, and this point is one you never hear brought up, is that any producer who releases digital media content embedded with DRM protection technologies for the general consumer market MUST have playback solutions available for ALL platforms"</i><br /><br />I totally agree. DRM shouldn't be control by Apple or Microsoft (come to think of it, I wouldn't want RIAA to have a say either). If you really sat down and thought about the DRM EULAs, you would wonder why the heck you bother buying any downloadable tracks. I should be able to play any iTunes songs on any digital media player and I should be able to listen to a Napster subscription on Linux. There are no real consumer protections right now except competition and that doesn't seem to be really doing much.

[Felix Torres]

All platforms?
Won't happen.

Not mandated.
Except for the EU's recent anti-MS *administrative* decision, governments have stayed away from mandating product design.
Not sure if its an enshrined legal principle world-wide but it is the main bone of contention in the matter of the cripple-ware Windows mandated by the EU; whether any government can legally mandate how a specific product is to be designed and built.

So I don't see how any government can force any company to support all platforms by fiat.
Does this mean the Commodore 64?
Amiga?
Atari ST?
Apple II?
MacOS 8?
Windows 9x?

The real gist of his point is that he wants Linux to get the same treatment as commercial platforms and that is a can of worms that, so far, most governments have stayed away from. Cause supporting a platform costs money and favoring one platform over another for political reasons is a big no-no under WTO free-trade rules. Artificial trade barrier.

The only way he gets what he wants is is both MS-DRM and Fairplay are *replaced* by a public domain DRM spec that does not violate MS, Apple, or Intertrust patents.

Good luck developing one, open sourcerors!

[ojlittle]

Here is my problem with Plays 4 Sure DRM...

I live in Cape Town S.A. &amp; I work up and down the African coast (E.G., Congo, Gabon, Nigeria, etc...). As I'm sure you know, internet access is not always readily available in countries such as these. For the last couple of years I've been an iTunes nut, purchasing most of my music from there. However, the Napster subscription had caught my attention due to the vast amount of songs available for $15/month. So, I bought a Creative Zen Micro.

The night before my first trip with the Micro I downloaded a bunch of new music and loaded it on to my Zen. I tested it, no problems. I transferred the music to my authorized laptop as well for the times I'm sitting in a hotel. When I got to my destination (Gabon this time) my computer would not play the music until it got online to check the license. After about 10 days the Zen crapped out as well and would only play non-copyprotected music. It wouldn't even play previously PURCHASED (not rented) music that I bought through Napster.

I've had the same problem with purchased music from Napster &amp; a Rio Carbon. Sometimes it will play, sometimes it won't.

As for the iPOD, I can authorize 3 computers and they never check for the license again unless I deauthorize the computer. I fired up iTunes and played the other music I had stored. No internet connection needed. I have another laptop that I have not turned on for months but it was still authorized. I turn it on and open iTunes (withouth a connection to the net) and it still plays all of my iTunes DRM encrypted music.

I guess what I'm getting at is that the WMA DRM is still very difficult to work with compared to iTunes &amp; the iPOD. Sure, you have many more music store choices and there are things I can't find on iTunes that I find in the WMA stores, but until the WMA DRM becomes stupid simple and less reliant on "checking" for authorization there is no apparent reason to switch. With my iPOD I sync and go. With my Zen I sync &amp; go &amp; worry...

[sojourner753]

While I certainly wouldn't want to see governments legislating software design, what I would like to see is a bonafide definition of "fair-use".

I mean something that has weight in court. I think that its frustrating that companies can just add and remove restrictions for what I've purchase on a whim.

Software developers should be able to add support to other platforms under the protection of "fair-use".

If apple doesn't want to open up their DRM for Linux then someone else should have the right to. Perhaps Apple can have the right to enforce its DRM specification. But not hinder the effort.

Just a dream I guess.

[Felix Torres]

While I certainly wouldn't want to see governments legislating software design, what I would like to see is a bonafide definition of "fair-use".


I think you mean you want a *universal* definition of fair use, right?
If so, expect to see one in the next few years.
Also, expect it to fall short of your dreams.

Any common definition of fair use will *not* include universal transportability. And it will not include mandatory free licensing nor guaranteed free reverse engineering rights, because neither is fair nor reasonable. The most you will get is what now exists with Windows Media and MS-DRM; non-discriminatory licensing for commercial use. Even to Linux applications vendors, which *can* license Windows Media Codecs at the same rates as anybody else. They just can't get it for free, which is what the whiners really want...

Fair use is in the eye of the beholder.
TINSTAAFL!