Reader question: Why is DRM evil?
After my post yesterday, Sanford wrote in to ask me why I think DRM is evil. He seemed to think I was being a bit too hyperbolic in my previous post’s discussion. Sanford pointed out that we have lived in a rights-managed world for a while now, and was curious why this particular form of rights management raises my hackles so. As the topic is one that I feel strongly about, I thought I’d share my reply to Sanford (slightly edited for prime-time) with the rest of you:
One of my main problems with DRM is the after-sale changeability of it. This is what my post yesterday was
about. I purchase a file with certain advertised functionality for $.99, but then a year later, the person who
sold me that file can suddenly limit the functionality without compensating me for the shift. It’s not really
inconveniencing me specifically right now, but it is one of those things that I think, left unchecked, could be bad for
consumers down the road.
My other problem with DRM is that it interferes with fair use ideas that have been in place for a while. For
example, I can buy a book. Then I can read the book and either lend it to a friend, donate it to the library, or
sell it without breaking any laws. That’s my right as owner of the physical book (while still not owning the content /
copyrights to the book). DRM (like that included in the music I purchase from iTunes) prevents me from reselling
a song I’ve purchased to someone else, from donating it to the library, or from lending it to a friend. That’s
infringing on my fair use rights and it is a real problem with DRM.
Supposedly the DRM is there to protect against illegal abuse of the content of these files, but anyone who does abuse
that content already knows how to circumnavigate the DRM, so the only thing it is really doing is inconveniencing the
user and infringing upon fair use rights.
For more reading on this topic, I recommend googling
“DRM and Cory Doctorow”. Cory works for EFF.org, blogs over at
BoingBoing.net, and has several good talks and documents he’s written on why DRM
is bad for everyone involved.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
AG said 4:14PM on 6-16-2005
DRM = ownership = control = money = profit.
Reply
Bruce said 4:14PM on 6-16-2005
This may sound a tad harsh: cry me a river.
When you got suckered out of your money by Apple you agreed to their TOS. Haven't read them myself, but I'll bet you my nice, shiny CD collection that somewhere in there Apple reserves the right to change the DRM. Oh, it won't say so specifically. It'll be couched in nice, mind-twisting legalese so you can't recognise it at a glance, but it's there.
I feel your pain. I really do. I hope you've learned your lesson and have stopped rewarding Apple for abusing you.
Reply
peter said 4:14PM on 6-16-2005
yes, drm systems are evil. there are a number of reasons for this, most of which are summarized and discussed on the following two pages:
http://junk.haughey.com/doctorow-drm-ms.html
http://www.toad.com/gnu/whatswrong.html
the verym very short version is that drm can only do little (to nothing) to restrict intentional misuse, but it hampers all possible forms of legal use. also, all technical systems can only enforce strict rules while we all live in a world where rules are flexible and subject to interpretation (have you ever ignored a "don't walk" at night?).
drm _is_ evil.
Reply
Tony said 4:14PM on 6-16-2005
>> My other problem with DRM is that it interferes with fair use ideas that have been in place for a while.>>
Fair use isn't an "idea." It's the law.
Reply
brian said 4:14PM on 6-16-2005
I believe in fair use, and I also believe all locks do is keep honest people honest, but there are some distinctions to note:
"I can buy a book. Then I can read the book and either lend it to a friend, donate it to the library, or sell it without breaking any laws."
But you can't make a perfect digital copy of that book and give it to a friend. This is a gaping hole in your analogy.
Reply
C.K. Sample, III said 4:14PM on 6-16-2005
"But you can't make a perfect digital copy of that book and give it to a friend. This is a gaping hole in your analogy."
Not really. I mean, there are several circumstances under the current DRM scheme where I am encouraged to make multiple digital copies of "that book" (i.e., the song file): a copy on my iPod, a copy burned to a CD, and a copy as a backup somewhere. These acts of making a perfect duplicate are supported by DRM. So why can't I make a copy for a friend to check out, and just to keep everything legal in an old school sense, while my friend is borrowing that song just uncheck that song from being actively played in my playlist. That would seem to be properly analogous to lending a friend a book.
Reply