Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Public Policy/Courses/Spring 2011/Politics of Piracy (Max Klein and Patrick Berger)/Schedule/6

=Question= Doctorow acknowledges that in some part people feel justified pirating music because "people feel the record industry are 'jerks'". The Publishing industry has the advantage of not being totally demonised yet. To what extent would DRM be a justified practice if it wasn't coming from 'greedy industries', or has it no legitimate purpose?

I think the fact that DRM is used by 'greedy' corporations right now is only a manifestation of the abuse of DRM. I feel that the greed sponsored by many corporations and even publishers - copyrighting things like the 'happy birthday' song or even the medicine of traditional healers in Africa. There has to be a better governing law on the types of materials and intellectual properties that can be copyrighted. I do believe the DRM itself is a justified practice because it provides an incentive for some to create, as well as for industries to control a basic idea that is the foundation for the jobs of many workers (like clothing companies). I also believe the DRM is good for protecting 'human capital', in an epoch where large corporations seem to have gathered enough capital to create outright international monopolies on certain products, it seems like the only way to create a new industry is to make an additional step and insert yourself into a process (i.e., yelp, stumbleupon). Human capital is the value of the ideas that people carry with them in their head, each created by a unique set of life experiences and desires. If there is no way to protect that, then inventions could easily be swept up by large corporations who already have the infrastructure and capability to dominate. Shakeandstir (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. It seems that the DRM began with good intentions, but has since then been morphed to fulfill the selfish desires at the expense of the consumer. It was put in place to prevent unfair/unlawful distribution of material to protect the producers from essentially being robbed of revenue, but has been manipulated to extremes like Doctorow's example in which he claims that it will get to the point where Walmart is producing readers that only let you see the material in Walmart chairs, under Walmart lamps, etc. I think that with strict regulations, the DRM can serve its initial purpose, but as of right now, the greed and selfishness of big companies are driving them to work to find loopholes to screw over the consumer. Kionajp (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

DRM cannot be justified whether it is the greedy music industry or the not yet demonized publishing industry. The purpose of DRM is to simply prevent people from fully utilizing the content they paid for. The argument put forth by DRM vendors is that they are protecting the authors of the content, but pay no mind to the fact that they are preventing people from using something they paid for. Before the lax of DRM protection in online music, you could not even put your music in any player you wanted to. iTunes DRM'd songs could only be put in the iPod and nothing else. People who support DRM in the guise of protecting the valuable content of creators need to realize that the content would have no value if consumers don't buy that content. Akawow (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this comment because what many artists do not seem to realize (and many actually do) is that DRM can limit widespread exposure to an artist's music. The way I learned about new bands before torrent downloading and downloading with programs like Napster back in the day was by having a friend copy music they think I would like onto my mp3 player or by having them make me a copy of an album from one of their favorite artists onto a CD. If these songs were protected (like iTunes' DRM's songs), I would have never been able to get music in this way and I would have never paid 40 bucks down the road to go see the artist live. In this way, the music industry is screwing over not only consumers, but artists (especially lesser known artists). For this reason, I also agree with Gorozco that the author(s) of a work should be given the choice of whether or not to include DRM protection in their product. The way it is now, it is hard not to question the true intentions behind the music industry's use of DRM. Gunheim (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Doctorow in that DRM provides an unwanted service, because consumers have no demand for a product that allows them to do less with their music. DRM restricts duplicating and sharing by requiring authorization codes or making file content expire. To the consumer these time-consuming restrictions do not evoke in them a desire to contemplate on the morality of file sharing, but rather represent annoying obstacles that disable the free use of a product they already feel to be rightfully theirs. After all, why should it not be theirs if they already rightfully paid for it and the file is now saved on their own computer? Thus, I think every possible attempt will be made by consumers to break these restrictions, putting DRM under constant attack, despite the fact that breaking DRM is illegal. As long as it is technologically possible, and the chance of being caught and fined is remote or improbably, DRM will be broken, simply because the restrictions are too unpopular among consumers. If DRM should ever be successful and provide publishing companies and record labels with a promising, new business model, then it must either: a) be unbreakable or b) the probability of being caught and held responsible with a fine must be so high that the offender gets caught at least half of the time. Kolibrical (talk 23:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC))

I think the only way DRM application to goods would be a justified practice by a respectable business can be defined by Doctorow's closing statements. When publishers offer to accept and sell an authors product with the condition of locking it into their platform with DRM's, all that is accomplished by this is the limiting of the rights of the authors. What needs to be done is the opposite. DRM can be justified when the authors offering works/goods to publishers are given the choice of whether to incorporate DRM's or not. I think it is this choice that defines the justification of DRM's.Gorozco1 (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Doctorow briefly talked about a company called overdrive, which, when it became bankrupt, removed all of the ebooks it distributed. The ebooks died with the company at the loss of the user. DRM appears to be a gimmick since the user's purchase is not protected as exemplified in the overdrive case. DRM seems to limit to which platform/devices certain digital content is compatible with and does not give complete ownership to the user who purchased it. I think DRM only frustrates genuine customizers who actually want to purchase digital content, but get frustrated with restricted use and access. Dtslife (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that the initial idea behind the creation and application of DRM was to aim to protect the digital media industry along with all of its associated intellectual properties. However, the way that this DRM system works now to me can only be seen as an abuse of the huge market share of some big corporations and functioning as a business model that many corporations use to lock in customers to prevent them from switching at will. DRM, however, would be a justified practice if the similar, if not exactly the same practice is conducted to all the other forms of media as well. For DRM to work as it is intended to, the copyright infringement has to be prevented in other media forms. For example, me being able to buy a CD at a local music store, then transfer all the songs to my computer and then upload them to the internet for people to download completely defeats the purpose of the existence of DRM, solely because digital downloading is simply not the only way that people use to get music. Thus, the fact that DRM is still in use today proves that it is not being used properly as it was first designed to be used as. Like Docorow said in his presentation, they only put a lock on something that you own without giving you the key. Zx4611869 (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that the DRM system was built on good intentions, specifically to protect the creators of the item before sold (whenever I think of this I think of Metallica), but it now is nothing but a nuance to the consumer. By limiting the platforms/devices that allow the consumer to use their purchased products, this creates a backlash at the system - and ultimately creating outlets like the pirate bay for people to turn to, to receive a non-DRM product for them to use in any of their platforms/devices. The consumer should be able to use the content of their purchased product in any way they please. If I buy an album, and if I feel like letting my friend upload it in their iTunes, I feel like I have that right. The example Doctorow gave with the company, override, and how when they went bankrupt the ebooks erased from the peoples' devices, I think that it unacceptable in every way. Hectorromero (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no need for DRM in the marketplace anymore. Publishers need to realize that the lack of DRM on their product does not decrease the value of the product. Also, that the presence of DRM does not make their product safer. The availability of the same item with and without DRM on the marketplace sends a mixed message to consumers. What that is is unclear. Perhaps, that some versions of the same product are more inherently valuable than others, and need greater protection? Or that some versions of a product are “owned” by a vendor? This inconsistency also provides plenty of opportunity for duplication of a non-DRM protected version. Thus, the presence of DRM is superfluous.Aeforrest (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

DRM would be justified if it placed restrictions on commodities that the end user did not own or has received for free. For example, I think that to a certain extent, DRM can be condoned when used in services such as NETFLIX. It is valid for NETFLIX to place restrictions on the digital video files it “rents” out because these files are not meant to become the user’s property; they are meant to be loaned to the user to consume for only a certain amount of time and ultimately belong to company. However, there are cases when I feel services like NETFLIX takes DRM too far. These are instances in which the software limits the types of hardware that may be used with the service. For example, installation of an “unsupported” computer certain monitor may cause your video files not to play. Furthermore, there are services out there that let you download restricted audio files for free as long as they are played on their own application. However, these services often go under and as a result, all the content downloaded from them become useless. If the content was paid for, this phenomenon would be inexcusable. If you have paid for a digital file, you should have the full freedom to do what you want with the media as long as you are obeying copyright laws. Moreover, you should not have to risk losing that file regardless of the fate of the vendor. Jeevz (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Since I can't think of a single situation in which it would be impossible to circumvent DRM completely, I believe that DRM serves no useful purpose. On the contrary, the emotional undercurrents surrounding DRM regarding fairness and openness seem to have overpowered other themes related to this issue like the protection DRM is supposed to provide. The level of perceived greed of corporate bodies doesn't affect some principles that DRM touches upon — and it certainly doesn't change the fact that its purpose is self-defeating. Rather than protecting content as an asset, DRM effectively strips content of its value by imposing capricious and frustrating restrictions upon the consumer, who would invariably find illegitimately distributed content more rewarding under such conditions. Hmanes (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the use of DRM by large corporations perpetuates the negative relationship between the consumer and and the vendor. While in a traditional supply and demand market, a purchase would rely on a healthy relationship between the two components. In the case of DRM, the vendor treats the consumer as if they have already committed a crime. This makes the consumer more likely to try to bend the rules and do things the vendor would not like. I think if this relationship were reestablished by a smaller firm, where the vendor treated the consumer with respect, DRM might be more acceptable. If the person purchasing the media were to know that the DRM were to ensure that the author of the media maintains a healthy standard of living and get paid for something they created, and not to punish the consumer for a crime they probably didn't commit, the consumer would understand why this was in place. I am not justifying the use of DRM, but recognizing that under certain conditions, it could be more acceptable. Christopher998 (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

DRM’s are ineffective as long as there are other means of distribution that allow the material to be pirated and the fact that DRMs are easily cracked. The only way for DRMs to be justified would be if it increased the confidence of the artist or the creator so that they will do business with the distributor or if the products revenue would be entirely based on the first few weeks of distribution and only distributed with the most powerful DRM imaginable. Rsryan (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

DRM feels like an utterly futile practice, where the harder vendors push it, the harder the pirating community rallies back against authority. Doctorow mentioned the example of how Spore was the most pirated game of 2008. Like others have said, there will always be ways around DRM, so making customers feel confined while at the same time imposing ineffectual restrictions seems like a loss on top of a loss. I do think that everyone has the right to safeguard their own creative work but, unless your work can function as a completely proprietary product, confining it to a platform is fighting a futile battle. 136.152.151.228 (talk) 03:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)